Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Political Contributions

Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward legislation to compel companies to ballot shareholders and employees before contributions are paid to a political party.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): No. The present law requires sufficient disclosure. Shareholders can raise questions about political contributions at the annual general meeting if they are dissatisfied.

Mr. Winnick: Why no change? The Government demand that the trade unions ballot their members every 10 years as to whether political funds should be retained. Why not have the same for companies? Is it because it is the companies that denote money to the Tory party? Is there no limit to the sheer hypocrisy of the Government in relation to political funds? They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Hamilton: Our system of company law is very wide ranging and imposes extensive obligations on companies. If trade unions had to comply with such extensive obligations, they would not thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is very easy for a shareholder who is dissatisfied to sell his shares if he does not like his company's policy, but it is not quite as easy to change trade unions.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who make decisions on behalf of companies to make donations are rightly subject to the accountability of shareholders? Does he further agree that those who make decisions do so in the best interests of their shareholders, their company and the prosperity of the nation as a whole?

Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. If there had not been such abuses in the trade union movement, which were always supported by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends over so many years, it would not have been necessary to bring in the obligations in 1984.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware of the Sunday Times survey which showed that chairmen of companies that donated to the Conservative party had a 50 per cent. better chance of receiving a knighthood? Is not that a further indication of the corruption and sleaze which surround the Government? Is not it time that shareholders had real

rights and were consulted before companies donate to the Tory party, which has done so much damage to the prospects of Britain's manufacturing industry?

Mr. Hamilton: I can remember a time not so long ago when it was a hanging offence in the Labour party to read the Murdoch press. I am glad to see that the Labour party has changed in some respects.

Mr. Roger Evans: Will my hon. Friend reject in terms the very sinister word in this question which so far appears to have been overlooked? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked not only for shareholders, the owners of the companies to be balloted but also employees? Will my hon. Friend reject this sinister attempt to extend trade union power?

Mr. Hamilton: I certainly do reject it. It is as a result of changes that we have made to trade union law over the last 13 years that trade unions no longer pose a danger to the economic prosperity of the country.

Post Office

Mr. Cummings: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the contribution of Post Office services to Government revenues since 1979.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The cumulative total of the Post Office's external financing limit contributions from 1979–80 to 1991–92 is £802 million.

Mr. Cummings: Now that the Secretary of State has admitted that the Post Office made £800 million, will he agree that we have the best Post Office in Europe, with the most efficient work force? The Post Office, which has increased profits by over 50 per cent., is a huge public sector success and should remain so. When will he present to the House his most extensive and far-reaching review?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry that the hon. Member is still indulging in the language of the past. The moment that a company indicates a success by making a profit, somehow it is seen to be milking the customer. It is important that companies should earn sufficient surplus to pay for their investment programmes and to earn a reasonable return on capital, which is what the Post Office is doing.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will have recalled, when he gave the information in his original reply, the value of the dictum that when an institution is in good working order it is a good idea not to mess about with it. Will he therefore give all the support that he can to the management of the Post Office so that it can continue to give an excellent service to consumers, whether in rural or urban areas? In particular, where a post office changes from Crown status to agency status, as is proposed for Wellington in my constituency, will he ensure that that post office continues to retain a central position and to provide high standards of service?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to seek an assurance that we are committed to enabling the Post Office to provide a high standard of service. That is why we have made it absolutely clear that the universality of service and of charge is not negotiable in any of the options that we are considering. However, I cannot ignore the fact


that company after company that has moved from the public to the private sector has been able to achieve significant improvements in productivity, has played a role in the international market and has earned greater returns for this country than ever it was able to do in the public sector.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I invite the President of the Board of Trade to correct a misunderstanding that he appears to have of my hon. Friend's question? My hon. Friend put it to him that the Post Office is one of the most profitable in the world, that it has the most reliable delivery service, at one of the cheapest prices, in Europe, and that in Britain it has achieved a growth in productivity that is double the average for the services sector over the past decade. My hon. Friend's question to the President was, why put all that at risk by privatising the Post Office, because of this Government's obsession with selling anything that they can sell off? Since the President has apparently announced that he cannot do it for another year, because he cannot figure out a way to do it, would not it be much better to end the damaging uncertainty, the delay in investment and the anxiety of staff by announcing that he intends to drop the whole idea and accept that the Post Office is a public service which should belong in the public sector?

Mr. Heseltine: That is the language with which the Labour party has sought to attack every change that this party has made over the past 10 years. It is because we have faced the Labour party down time and again that British Gas, the power companies and the water companies are winning in the world marketplace. Every time that we take a difficult decision on behalf of British industry, it is resisted by the Labour party. That is a very good reason why we should stay in power and have the courage to go on doing so.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us, who have strongly supported privatisation, still have reservations about privatising the royal mail? Does he accept that the figures that he gave to the House this afternoon illustrate a very good case for removing economic restraint on the Post Office, but not a very strong case for privatising it?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to express concern, but what I have to make clear to the House is that the overwhelming majority of post offices are already in the private sector. My hon. Friend will also realise that within the public sector there are unavoidable public accounting disciplines which constrain the ability of a public sector organisation to compete effectively with the private sector. What is happening in the Post Office is that increasingly a sector of its market is being eaten into by private sector companies and by new technology, whether it is the fax machine, or the bike or the courier. All these things are putting the Post Office under competitive pressure. That is why many people think that we can preserve the standards of the royal mail but widen the opportunities for the people who work in it.

Mr. Hain: I remind the President of the Board of Trade that, unlike the other utility services that have been privatised, the Post Office's costs are 80 per cent. labour intensive and there is no way in which he can guarantee to rural and outlying areas the quality of service that they enjoy at present. May I also remind him, that on top of the

£800 million that has been contributed, through negative external financing limit payments, to the Treasury coffers, the Treasury has received an additional £400 million in corporation tax over this period. By privatising the Post Office, the President will perhaps reap a one-off return of an equivalent scale, but he will forgo year upon year of income to the Treasury from a service which the public respects and is the best in the world.

Mr. Heseltine: I am the first to recognise the quality of the service, but the question that I have to answer is how can we enable the Post Office to build on the quality of its service and widen the opportunities for Britain in so doing? The issue is whether there would be an opportunity for the Post Office in a private sector context in an international competitive world, which would be bigger than that in which it can involve itself today.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the Post Office.

Mr. Heseltine: No decisions have yet been taken on the future organisation and structure of the Post Office. I will make an announcement to the House when we have reached conclusions.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fears expressed about the consequences of privatising the Post Office are precisely the same as those expressed about the privatisation of British Telecom? Does he agree that the current uncertainty is bad for the staff, customers and management of the Post Office? Will he bring it to an end speedily by announcing the imminent privatisation of the Post Office?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the Labour party has opposed every liberalisation and every measure to free the public sector which we have introduced and would therefore have prevented the large number of the advances now being achieved by the privatised companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Jobs for the boys."] Opposition Members talk about jobs for the boys. I am glad that they recognise that we are concerned to protect the jobs of people in the privatised industries by setting them free to take advantage of the new, worldwide marketplace. I cannot today give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requests, although I am the first to recognise that many people in the Post Office are asking for exactly what he suggests.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that there is all the difference in the world between releasing a nationalised public sector industry from the constraints traditionally imposed on it and guarding the unity and coherence of a service in the national interest? I thought that his political experience would have taught him that there is all the difference in the world between popular capitalism and unpopular dogmatism. Does not he realise that privatising the Post Office would be a privatisation too far?

Mr. Heseltine: That was a classic example of the Liberal party trying to have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman must make his own decision about whether it is a journey too far, but we shall decide whether we are going to embark on the journey.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there cannot be an organisation in the world, however good, that cannot be improved and that that must apply to the Post Office and the delivery of the mail and parcels? Will he press ahead with his plans for the privatisation of the Post Office and to increase competition because that will also improve the service to consumers?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to ask about competition. I have tried to say how technology and the globalisation of markets are already subjecting the Post Office to a range of new services. However, the critical question at the heart of the matters is how, while protecting the absolute non-negotiability of the universality of the service and the price, we can allow the men and women who work in the Post Office to expand, to compete and to seek wider opportunities, which is not compatible with public sector discipline. That is the dilemma we face.

Mr. Cousins: Does the President accept that, on the matter of Post Office privatisation, his figleaf is becoming dangerously small? After nearly nine months and the expenditure of £500,000 on advice from Kleinwort Benson, he has no proposals to put before the House. The Post Office awaits its opportunity as a public sector company which can mop up the postal markets of western Europe. When will he allow the Post Office the commercial freedom to be that kind of public sector success?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is completely divorced from the reality of public sector accounting. No Government have ever been able to set free a public sector enterprise outside the disciplines of the public expenditure round and Treasury control. There never has been nor ever will be such a Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the Labour Government designed a structure that was not compatible with a free enterprise system. If there had been such a system, the Opposition would presumably have found it in the years when they experimented so disastrously with public ownership.

Exports (Scandinavia)

Mr. Bates: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on measures introduced to promote exports to Scandinavia.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham: The full range of overseas trade services is available for companies wishing to export to Scandinavia. More specifically, my Department regularly undertakes special initiatives in relation to those markets.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the north-east exports a greater proportion of its manufacturing output than almost any other region and that an increasing amount of that trade is with Scandinavian countries, especially that involving the development of the extensive North sea oil arid gas reserves, in which about 22,000 people in the north-east are already employed? Does my hon. Friend agree that those trading links with Scandinavia would be given a significant boost by the early inclusion of the Scandinavian countries in the single European market?

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend arid the sooner that we can get Maastricht out of the way, the

sooner we can enlarge the Community. As my hon. Friend says, the oil and gas industry in the north-east is of paramount importance. The story is one of immense success and I have no doubt that it will continue. Last year, exports to the nordic countries grew by more than 5 per cent. and imports by only 2 per cent., so I am delighted to say that we are closing the gap, with the help of companies from the north-east.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to remind our Norwegian trading partners that if they insist on slaughtering minke whales in the north Atlantic, they will imperil both imports from and exports to this country, because many people feel that the Norwegians should desist from the obscenity of whaling?

Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings on that subject, but I assure the House that the Government will continue to do everything that they can to promote and increase trade with the nordic countries, including Norway.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that our sales into Scandinavia will be improved not only by the recent increases in Export Credits Guarantee Department cover, but by the fact that the pound is more competitive against the Norwegian, Danish and Swedish kroners? The fact that we have low inflation also improves our ability to sell abroad. If the high-spending, high-taxation, high-inflation policies of the Labour party were followed, we would be unable to sell not only to Scandinavia but to the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.

Mr. Needham: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. Another difference between us and the Labour party is that whereas we have a strategy for backing winners, the Labour party, as I know because I have just read the strategy of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), is returning to a strategy for picking losers.

Offshore Oil Wells

Mr. Ainger: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many offshore oil exploration wells were drilled in the British sector in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what is his estimate of the numbers in 1993.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): A total of 92 exploration wells were drilled in 1989; 152 in 1990; 106 in 1991; and 72 in 1992. My Department does not publish forecasts for the numbers of exploration wells.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that since the changes in petroleum revenue tax announced in the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now known by the United Kingdom offshore oil industry as the driller killer? is he aware that the industry expects a 30 to 40 per cent. cut in the number of wells drilled, which could mean a cut of 40,000 jobs in the offshore sector? Does he agree that the damage that will flow from the changes in PRT is unacceptable? Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer consult the Minister before the announcement was made and what does the Minister intend to do to restore confidence in our offshore exploration industry?

Mr. Eggar: Clearly I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Judging by his previous written questions on the subject, I thought that he was doing his best to prevent exploration of any kind off the coast of the United


Kingdom. Oil companies and oil supply companies have expressed both favourable views and reservations about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget. A number of companies are meeting the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to discuss the changes in the light of the publication of the Finance Bill.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the successful bidders in previous rounds have entered into drilling and exploration obligations which the new tax regime may preclude? Does the Department of Trade and Industry realise that the honouring of those obligations may become increasingly difficult? Does the Minister agree with the Treasury's view that those legal obligations may be set aside, or does he take a contrary view?

Mr. Eggar: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman. He appears to be advocating that oil companies should break obligations into which they entered freely. I think that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider his view.

Eureka

Mr. Garrett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of participation of British companies in the EC Eureka project.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): Three hundred and eight British companies have participated in Eureka projects.

Mr. Garrett: What does the President of the Board of Trade think of the case of LJ Technical Systems in my constituency about which I have corresponded with his office? That very go-ahead, innovative electronics company in Norwich joined two French companies to make a bid for funding under the Eureka project. The French companies were visited within a month by a technically qualified civil servant who approved their bid. The British company in my constituency was messed about for seven months by some daft mandarin who actually did not know what the product was for and, at the end of the process, turned it down. How is that for the dynamic DTI?

Mr. Leigh: The House will not be surprised to learn that the hon. Gentleman has told only about a quarter of the story. The truth is that an application was made on 9 July. Not within one month, or two months, but within one day, the DTI contacted that company and requested information on 10 July. The whole point of the Eureka project is that it should equal significant technological advance. We asked that question, but there was no reply. We asked again on 31 July, but again there was no reply. We asked again on 2 September, but there was no reply. A reply was finally given in October. In November, because of the highly competitive nature of the competition and the fact that there were more innovative projects, we did not give a grant.

Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the inadequacy of that reply, I give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Post Office

Ms Eagle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the planned change in the Post Office contribution to Government finances between 1990–91 to 1992–93 and 1993–94 to 1995–96.

Mr. Heseltine: The Post Office's external financing limit contributions for the two years 1990–91 and 1991–92 were, respectively, zero and £74 million. The target for 1992–93 is £66 million. For the three years 1993–94 to 1995–96, the target contributions are, respectively, £181 million, £176 million and £158 million.

Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that seeking to increase the contributions that the Post Office makes to the Exchequer by close to three times in one year will imply a massive increase in postal charges once the price freeze ends in August? When those price increases arrive later in the year to pay for that, will we see the introduction of a Tory post tax to pay for the Government's economic mismanagement?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady may like to catch up with the facts. There has been a price freeze for 18 months and a further six months of freeze was recently announced.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend has said how important the Post Office is to the country. In his drive to improve the postal service, will he assure me that regard will be given to rural post offices and that, if any changes are made, there will be assurances that the service that is currently provided to rural customers will continue to be provided?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is well aware of the considerable importance of the rural post office network. We have made it clear in the consultation papers that we have produced that the maintenance of a very substantial rural post office network in the private sector, where it now is, is an important part of our policy, just like the universality of delivery and price.

Ms Hoey: Will the Secretary of State have a word with his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Security and try to persuade him of the folly of requiring pensions and benefits to be paid through banks rather than through post offices? Does he realise that that would ruin our rural post offices and cause many problems for many pensioners throughout the country?

Mr. Heseltine: Many people choose to have their pensions paid through the banking system. There are obvious issues to be explored. The Government have made it clear that automated credit transfer is part of their policy. Of course, we are aware of the complications and implication involved in that, but I would not give the sort of assurance that the hon. Lady seeks.

Pit Closures

Mr. Janner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the situation regarding the effect of pit closures on related industries.

Mr. Eggar: The Government's views are set out in the White Paper, "Prospects for Coal" and in their response to the Select Committee on Employment. It is because we


recognise the impact of pit closures that we have expanded to £200 million the value of the package of measures to help affected areas.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recognise that while the Government are making arrangements for special redundancy payments for miners who are made redundant as a result of the pit closures, they have made no announcement, whether to the Select Committee on Employment, in the White Paper or elsewhere, about special redundancy measures to help people who are made redundant in related industries, as opposed to additional help for the areas in which they live? What do the Government propose to do for the individuals and their families? Probably as many as 100,000 people will be made redundant if the pit closure programme goes forward in any form. What special redundancy pay will they get?

Mr. Eggar: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished Committee Chairman, continues to repeat a figure of 100,000 which seems to be a complete figment of his imagination. I wish that he would point to the positive side just once. For example, why have we not heard from him about the many jobs that will be created by the announcement that the Connah's Quay project will go ahead?

Mr. Alexander: As the related industries must by definition include those interested in purchasing the coal mines that are to close, is not it astonishing that British Coal is closing down those mines at the end of April and yet refusing to allow any interested purchasers to view the mines in the meantime? Is not it clear that British Coal is denying the opportunity for those coming in to purchase ongoing coal mines and does not want competition from outside at all?

Mr. Eggar: It is my understanding that, if British Coal were to decide to cease coaling at Bevercotes, which is my hon. Friend's concern, that mine would go on to a care and maintenance basis so there is no possibility of its simply not being available for sale to the private sector. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of his constituents. Clearly, it is important that British Coal moves rapidly to put mines such as Bevercotes on the market and make them available to the private sector. I take the message that my hon. Friend has delivered to me.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware of the anger among miners and the management of British Coal that their pension fund is to be raided to match the cost of the new subsidy? Is it the bottom line that in March the Government announced a subsidy of up to £500 million and instructed British Coal in April to save the Treasury much the same figure? Is not it true that Conservative Members did not tell us that in the debate or the White Paper because they know that no one else will accept it as fair that the miners' pension fund should pay the cost of the Government's mismanagement of the pit closures?

Mr. Eggar: What I think people are extremely angry about is the hon. Gentleman's irresponsible scaremongering. It has been made absolutely clear that there will be no rip-off of the pension funds—pensions will be safeguarded. That is the clear undertaking which has been given. What is more, British Coal will seek a court direction as to the

way in which the surplus can be disposed of. I wish that just once the hon. Gentleman would bother to do his homework.

Mr. Dickens: Can the Minister explain why Labour Members always suppose that, by throwing resources after —[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for some time. He should not be asking the Minister to explain anything about Labour Members: he must ask a direct question relating to Government policy.

Mr. Dickens: When the textile workers of the north were put out of work and the mills closed, they did not have handouts such as those that have been suggested in this question.[Interruption.] That matter is relevant to the question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am moving on.

Mr. Barron: The Minister is aware of the blackmail tactics that are being used currently at Maltby colliery to get rid of the work force and stop production at one of the most profitable and modern coal mines in Europe. That would obviously take away the market for many forms of mining manufacturing industry. On Friday this week, I am going to visit NEI mining division in Sheffield, which employs some of the best engineers in Britain. What have I to say to them when they see their jobs being taken away by the Government's attacks on the British coal mining industry?

Mr. Eggar: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should describe what is happening at Maltby as blackmail. Through British Coal, the Government have committed a net £29 million to investment in the development of Maltby in order to create the super-pit of the future. Why does not the hon. Gentleman for once point to the advantages that lie ahead for his constituents rather than any downside?

Manufacturing (West Yorkshire)

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next visit West Yorkshire to discuss job losses in manufacturing.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers in my Department make frequent visits to Yorkshire. My right hon. Friend next plans to visit Leeds in mid-May to attend the Association of British Chambers of Commerce annual conference dinner.

Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that in Yorkshire and Humberside between 1989 and 1992, 35,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing? Will he do something for the thousands of unemployed in Halifax by unequivocally supporting Calderdale council's bid for objective 2 status and by granting Calderdale assisted area status? He must be aware that Calderdale is like the hole in the middle of the doughnut, surrounded by areas that receive help, but receiving nothing.

Mr. Sainsbury: We all regret—[Interruption.] We are all sorry to see job losses, but I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that inevitably improvements in productivity are sometimes accompanied by job losses. I cannot anticipate for her the outcome of the review of the assisted


area map. I hope that she recognises that we have only just received from the European Community its proposals for the rules that will apply to objective 2 status. They are being considered and are not likely to be agreed by the Council of Ministers until later in the summer.

Mr. Batiste: What does my right hon. Friend advise those who, like the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), bemoan job losses in West Yorkshire, but advocate policies such as the social chapter, which would cost so many jobs by making British industry uncompetitive on the world markets?

Mr. Sainbsury: I would advise, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would, that they consult industry. If they did, they would find that industry is aware that if it is to succeed, create jobs, win export orders and win a larger share of the home market, the key is productivity. That is what they seek and that is what the Government are helping them to achieve.

Small Businesses (North-west)

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new small businesses have been established during the last 12 months for which figures are available, in the north-west region.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: An indication of the number of new businesses set up in the north-west can be obtained from VAT data. During 1991—the latest year for which figures are available—there were 21,000 registrations for VAT in the north-west. More recent figures are published by Barclays bank, which estimates that during 1992 there were 51,000 new start-ups in the north-west. The figure includes businesses with a turnover below the VAT threshold.

Mr. Kilfoyle: More than an indication of the state of the economy in the north-west are surely the Dun and Bradstreet figures for the year up to March 1993, which show that 5,046 businesses went under in the north-west in that time. Does not that give the lie to the claim propagated by the Tory party in the current county council elections in the north-west that it is the party of responsible economic management for the north-west?

Mr. Hamilton: There are 3 million businesses in Britain and even in times of boom, businesses cease trading and new businesses are created. Even at a time of recession, many businesses are coming forward to take up the opportunities which are increasingly available to them. Lower interest rates, a more competitive exchange rate and all the north-west's advantages make me optimistic for the future. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman and his Opposition colleagues always seem to talk down the region rather than capitalise on its strengths and advocate them as loudly as possible.

Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that most of the small and medium-sized firms in my constituency and throughout the north-west report strong signs of economic upturn? Does he agree that their continuing prosperity depends on the continuation of Government policies that deliver low inflation, low borrowing costs and freedom from the job-destroying social chapter?

Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Were it not for the legacy of Labour party militancy on Merseyside it would be easier for us to advocate the advantages of the north-west.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister take note of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that many of the businesses that the Minister mentioned are opening, then closing after about six months? If he lived in the city or the region, he would understand that. Are the several hundred people selling cigarette lighters in the centre of Liverpool classified as small businesses?

Mr. Hamilton: It is a great shame that Liverpool has Members of Parliament like the hon. Gentleman, because if those watching our proceedings this afternoon regard him as typical of the city it is no wonder that we have difficulty in attracting people into it. However, in spite of the best efforts of people like the hon. Gentleman, we have been instrumental in attracting jobs to Liverpool, to places such as Wavertree technical park. We provided £6 million in grants, which has led to £30 million in private sector investment and the creation of 1,600 long-term jobs in the city of Liverpool.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that some new businesses that are started in the north-west do so with assisted area status aid? My hon. Friend will be aware that aid has already been granted to one business that has been relocated from my constituency to Wigan, with the aid of £1 million? I have written to my hon. Friend with details of another firm that is about to relocate to the north-west with assisted area status aid. Is it sensible use of Government money to give aid that involves a net loss of jobs—putting people out of work in one district and putting them into work in another?

Mr. Hamilton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. Such policies inevitably create difficulties from time to time. Some parts of the country have great disadvantages on account of historical change and transition from old-fashioned industries to new ones. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has discussed the case with me and I take his concerns seriously. We want to see economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and regional selective assistance plays a part in achieving that objective.

Miners (Unemployment Insurance)

Mr. Enright: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will hold discussions with insurance companies on the problems facing miners who wish to insure against unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eggar: The issue of policies and their terms are for the commercial judgment of insurance companies. It would not be appropriate to intervene in their commercial decisions. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, miners who are made redundant are eligible for generous redundancy payments of up to £37,000 per man.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to take time off from dipping his hand in the till of miners' pensions with


the same ease with which he used to whirl the Mace, and consider the problem of miners in pits such as Stillingfleet, who have a long future ahead of them but are unable to obtain insurance due to the document uttered by the Minister, "Prospects for Coal"? Insurance companies no longer think that any pit has a future. We are not talking about redundant miners, but miners who are in work—what is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the use of language. I do not understand how he believes that the cause that he seeks to promote is furthered by using language as he has just done.

Mr. Quentin Davies: How many jobs are being created for miners who have been made redundant by British Coal Enterprise and other Government initiatives in coal mines or former coal mining areas?

Mr. Eggar: British Coal Enterprise is playing an active role in finding additional jobs and relocating individuals. Between 1987 and 1992, no fewer than 84 per cent. of all those who registered with British Coal Enterprise were found long-term employment within a year to 18 months. That is a very impressive record.

Mr. Stevenson: Is the Minister aware that any insurance that may be available against job losses is no substitute for a job? In my constituency, it is estimated that the proposed cruel closure of Trentham colliery will lead to 4,400 people losing their jobs with a loss to the local economy of £84 million. Is the Minister prepared to assure us that the resources available to create employment will reflect that tragic and massive loss in that area?

Mr. Eggar: The Trentham colliery is part of the continuing consultation process on the closures. Should it be decided that Trentham be closed, of course the private sector will be able to lease or, in due course, purchase Trentham. I am sure that that is something which the hon. Gentleman will welcome.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of former miners in my constituency were made redundant and given a pittance for redundancy pay under previous Labour Governments, so the Opposition have no right to preach to us about hands in tills when it comes to miners? Do not millions of workers in other industries rely for their jobs on competitively priced energy, and to give coal a monopoly on energy, as Labour would like, would put thousands of jobs at risk elsewhere in the economy?

Mr. Eggar: The hypocrisy of the Opposition knows no bounds.

Mr. Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I propose to ask for an Adjournment debate.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Hanson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the Society of British Aerospace Companies to discuss future prospects for the industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has no current plans to meet the Society of British Aerospace Companies, but my Department keeps in close touch with the society

and its member companies. Two weeks ago I led a SBAC mission which discussed United Kingdom export opportunities with the Boeing company in Seattle.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that even as we speak there is a lobby of the House by aerospace workers who are seeking to stop the haemorrhage of jobs—50,000 in the past few years, including many in my own constituency in north Wales? Will the Minister take action on the aerospace industry and today publish the report by his own aviation committee which is critical of the Government's policy? Will he act upon its recommendations and give the House an assurance that he will undertake to accept the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee which is meeting today?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is, I hope, aware that the aerospace industry world wide is suffering both from the welcome reduction in defence orders, and the recession in the airline industry which has obviously reduced the number of orders that the industry has to satisfy. The industry receives a great deal of Government support and will continue to do so.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British aerospace industry, particularly British Aerospace itself, is one of Britain's largest exporters and has an outstanding record of achievement? Will he ensure that British Aerospace, particularly the regional jet division which is located on the periphery of my constituency, always receives sympathetic consideration from the Department in respect of launch aid for new projects and the research and development which is so essential to the success of the industry?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am very happy to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the export success of British Aerospace and the British aerospace industry in general. As my hon. Friend will know, since 1979 that industry has received considerable support from the Government—no less than £1·5 billion. As I said in my earlier reply, it will continue to receive support.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman of the devastating loss of 269 British Aerospace jobs in my constituency at the Broughton works, and of the amazement of the work force who have learnt that nearly 100 of those jobs are to be directly exported to the constituency of President Clinton at Little Rock? Will he intervene? Will he receive the petition that I have today received from a lobby of my constituents, who are angry and disappointed and who look to the Government to give them help?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that decisions on its corporate jet business are clearly commercial matters for the company. It must make the decisions as it sees fit in the best interests of the business. The hon. Gentleman will be assured to know that the company has said that it has no intention of closing down the Chester or Broughton production facilities.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the Society of British Aerospace Companies about the European Community Konver programme? Has he yet had a chance to look at the strange classification of the areas that should be helped by the European Community? That classification seems to exclude counties such as Dorset and the travel-to-work


area of Weymouth and Portland, which has a 43 per cent. defence dependency and which clearly should be helped by any money that comes from this programme.

Mr. Sainsbury: I have not received any representations on that point from the SBAC, but if I do, I will be happy to look at them. I share some of my hon. Friend's concerns about the proposals emerging under the Konver programme—especially for the reasons that he has advanced: it does not seem to direct enough support to the areas that would most deserve it.

Nuclear Review

Mr. Tipping: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the timetable for the 1993 nuclear review.

Mr. Eggar: The Government set out in the White Paper, "Prospects for Coal", their intention to bring forward the review of the future prospects for nuclear power originally scheduled for 1994. A further announce-ment about the review will be made in the summer.

Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister understand the real anger in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country arising from the fact that, while nuclear electricity receives a subsidy of £1·3 billion, half the coal industry has been closed down? Will he bring forward the review of nuclear electricity as quickly as possible so that mothballed collieries such as Bilsthorpe, Calverton and Rufford will at last have a chance to compete on equal terms?

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that large numbers of trade unionists very much welcome the decision on nuclear power. The trade unionists for safe nuclear energy came to thank me for the decisions announced in the White Paper, and agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the review should be brought forward so as to end the apparent fear of some uncertainty about the future of the nuclear industry. At the time of the review, we will look at a large number of issues that relate to the future of the nuclear industry.

Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that nuclear power is clean, safe and good value? Is he further aware that the project team at Sizewell B is bringing in that project on time and at cost, which will make it a world-beating project team for further nuclear power stations? Will he assure the House that the benefits and achievements of our nuclear industry will be borne in mind when he undertakes the review?

Mr. Eggar: Certainly we will. My latest information is that Sizewell B is likely to be brought in under project cost and ahead of time.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will two critical decisions affecting the future of the nuclear industry be delayed until after the publication of the nuclear review? I refer to the deep repository for spent nuclear fuel and to the start-up of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant project. The Minister will know that it has already cost the taxpayers of this country £2·8 billion and it is costing British Nuclear Fuels plc a great deal of money every week because is is not starting up.

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the widespread concern on all sides of the House about the delays to the THORP project.
BNFL estimates that the delay in the start-up of the project is costing about £2 million per week. Of course, the matter is being considered urgently by my right hon. Friends.

Exports

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the top 10 export industries; and what level of exports they are each responsible for in percentage terms.

Mr. Needham: Aerospace, industrial chemicals, office equipment and computers and motor vehicles industries each contributed 6 per cent. Oil and gas, the electronic consumer goods and components industry, telecommunication equipment and control systems and machinery for general industrial use contributed 4 per cent. Motor vehicle parts and pharmaceuticals industries contributed 3 per cent.

Mr. Pawsey: May I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply which underlines the importance of manufacturing industry to the economy and, harking back to the question by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), also to jobs? Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in congratulating companies like GEC Alstom Ltd and Cegelec Ltd in my constituency, which have outstanding records in exports? Does he agree that much more might be done to help exporters, for example, by further reducing rates of export credit guarantees?

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of manufacturing industry to exports. I am sure my hon. Friend would like to know that since 1981 the volume of United Kingdom manufactured exports has increased by four fifths, faster than France, Germany, Italy, the United States and Japan. The range of industries that I read out shows the depth and breadth of industry involved and its success. My hon. Friend is right to point to GEC Alstom Ltd in his constituency. GEC, one of the most successful companies in the country, is already saying that in the 1990s it will double its exports to the Pacific rim. I am sure that it will succeed in that.

Ms Short: Does the Minister agree that, after the longest recession since the 1930s, the fact that Britain has a balance of payments deficit means that we have had a serious failure over the last 14 years in our strategy for manufacturing industry? Does he agree that that is very worrying for the future? Can he tell us whether the Government have any policies or strategy to increase investment in manufacturing, or will they just write off the future?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends write off the future every time they stand on their feet, by knocking British manufacturing and its successes. British industry is now in a position to capture an increasing number of markets in the world; the Department of Trade and Industry is standing alongside it in achieving that objective. As I remarked just now, if the hon. Lady was listening, the capital goods industry has already said that in the next seven years it will double its exports from £10 billion to £20 billion. No doubt the hon. Lady would like to come out selling.

Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of textiles in our export market. Can he tell the House whether he has received any representations on the report that south Korea is about to add fairly high tariffs to our wool textile goods exported to that country?

Mr. Needham: I have not as yet. As I intend to go to Korea tomorrow, I shall raise the matter with the Korean Government.

Mr. Bell: In reference to the question put by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) about export credit guarantees, may we welcome the extension of the guarantees to Russia following the G7 talks in Japan? Will the Minister confirm that the major issue facing exporters is the future of the 20 per cent. political risk cover guaranteed by the Department of Trade and Industry? It is supposed to expire at the end of 1994. When may we expect a statement from the Minister that it will be extended?

Mr. Needham: We are considering the matter through ECGD with NCM and Trade Indemnity. I believe that the hon. Member is referring to the reinsurance aspects of political risk. Companies have been successful in managing to place some 90 per cent. of that in the private market this year, but I am keeping the matter under close review.

Post Office

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office.

Mr. Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the wonderful support that I have had from my constituents in battles to save five post offices? Public meetings which I organised were attended by hundreds of people. Each of the post offices was saved and enhanced as part of Post Office Counters. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in the event of privatisation, the services of those post offices will be further enhanced? Will he also look at the issue of postal collections across London on Sundays, which are currently rare? More collections are needed. If the Post Office is privatised will there be more postal collections on Sundays?

Mr. Heseltine: I have no doubt whatever of my hon. Friend's unremitting efforts on behalf of the post offices in his constituency. I am delighted to hear of the success which I am sure he richly deserves. I should properly refer matters such as post office services on Sundays in London to the Post Office board and I shall rapidly do so.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is not another attractive feature of Post Office privatisation for the Government the fact that yet another board will be created which superannuated Ministers can join and draw healthy emoluments for their services?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will remember that that precedent was established by Labour when it created nationalised industries and transferred Ministers to run them.

Points of Order

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night, a Northern Ireland Office Minister announced that, for technical reasons, the Government intended to withdraw their plans to privatise Northern Ireland's water. That means that only Scotland faces the prospect of water privatisation in this Parliament.
Could we have a business statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland today to explain the technical reasons for the withdrawal of plans to privatise water in Northern Ireland? We in Scotland think that the technical reason may be that the Government do not have a democratic mandate in Northern Ireland. But neither do they have a democratic mandate in Scotland for water privatisation.

Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman will have to pursue his point through some other channel.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were not to know that, in my constituency, there are textile mills that manufacture the canvas on which coal is conveyed underground. My question was much more relevant than you anticipated. Perhaps I should have introduced that element earlier in my point.

Madam Speaker: That is right. The hon. Gentleman ought to lead with a question rather than just make comments. I was born not far from his constituency, and I know it well.

PRESENTATION OF BILL

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT)

Mr. George Robertson presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the not proven verdict by the amendment of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

FIRE SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

TRAFFIC WARDENS

That the draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

FAMILY LAW (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Amendment) (No. 2)

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections 1 and 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to enable the Courts to take account of relevant factors when dealing with custodial sentences and related matters.
My Bill will give the House an opportunity to amend key defects in the 1991 Act. Since it came into force last year, that Act has allowed criminals who ought to have gone to prison to get away with it. It has unacceptably restricted the ability of the courts to imprison persistent offenders.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) introduced a Bill which also deals with these matters. My Bill differs from his in several ways. Before I outline those differences, I should like to compliment the hon. Gentleman on his impressive and eloquent speech, which clearly identified the issues that I wish to address. I associate myself with many of the arguments that he so ably put before the House. I differ from the hon. Gentleman, in that I do not seek a return to the position that existed before October of last year. Rather, my aim is to amend the Act to strike a new balance within the framework of the legislation.
The Government introduced the Criminal Justice Act with some important and still valid aims. They just sought to achieve those aims in the wrong way. My Bill would give the courts wider discretion, without returning to the defects that the Act sought to remedy.
The second difference is that the Bill is fully drafted and, after considerable discussion and consultation, has the endorsement of those on the Labour Front Bench. I can offer the Government the Labour party's co-operation in speedily implementing my Bill should they decide to take that opportunity.
I am putting the Bill forward now because, like the hon. Member for Canterbury, I believe that there is a need for urgency in amending the Criminal Justice Act. The Home Secretary said recently, before the Home Affairs Select Committee, that he was reluctant to amend the Act until a year had passed since it came into force. I do not feel that he has yet grasped the urgency of the need to deal with the matter. I hope that the fact that, in two days, two Bills have been introduced, by hon. Members on each side of the House, dealing with the same issue will emphasise the importance with which the House regards the need to amend the Act.
I call on the Government to provide legislative time to respond to the demand, from both sides of the House, for urgent action. That is why my Bill has been introduced so close on the heels of the debate last week on criminal justice, which saw repeated calls for the issues to be tackled.
That is why the opportunity has been taken to focus two Bills on the same subject, on consecutive days, albeit from different points of view. It is an attempt to put pressure on the Home Secretary to act. He must understand that Conservative and Labour Members are not prepared to wait until October for a year to pass, while criminals are released when they should be behind bars, and then claim more victims. He must treat the matter with the priority that it deserves.
Sections 1(2) (a) and 29 of the Criminal Justice Act are the offending sections that must be amended. Under section 1(2) (a), in deciding whether to send a criminal to prison, the court can consider only two of the offences before it. The defendant may have more offences before the court. He may be a shoplifter or a social security fraudster who has committed a large number of offences over a substantial period, and admits so.
There may be 20, 30 or 50 offences to be taken into consideration yet, as happened recently at Reading, the court can take a decision based only on two offences. That is ridiculous. The decision whether to send someone to prison will be different if it is based on two offences than it would be if it were based on a large array of offences, and that factor must be contained within new legislation. My Bill would amend section 1(2) (a) to allow the court to look at all the offences before it in deciding whether to imprison.
The other offending section, section 29, deals with the length of the sentence to be imposed. It prevents the court from taking into account a previous criminal record, except in particular circumstances.
Although the Labour party believes that we need to be tough on crime and the causes of crime, we are not seeking to join the "hang 'em and flog 'em" brigade. We just want to see defendants get justice in the courts and our constituents protected.
Therefore, let me concede that the Minister who was responsible for section 29, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), then a Home Office Minister and now the Secretary of State for Education, introduced that section to deal with a real inadequacy in the law before the Criminal Justice Act was passed, and he had some support for that from the Labour party.
It was then possible for the courts to sentence offenders not for the offence before the court but for their previous convictions. In a case in 1988, that resulted in a thief who had stolen fish worth £12 getting three and a half years. That was wrong, as Lord Justice Stocker said at the time. It was right that that sentence should be cut.
That fault had to be tackled but, unfortunately, the Act sought to do so by hamstringing the courts with a series of complex hurdles before they could imprison anyone. It was the wrong approach to the issue.
The right approach was to allow all the relevant previous convictions to be considered within the context of the seriousness of the offence. That is what my amendment will do. It is a workable solution to the problems of the Act, which will allow courts to imprison but not to imprison unjustly. It will give the courts more discretion than the present section 29, without the defects of the old rule. It will allow the courts to protect the public by sending to prison those who should go to prison.
The Lord Chief Justice has called sections 1 and 29 misconceived motions. Judges who appeared before the

Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, began their evidence by demanding that these provisions should be changed. Only the other day, a judge told me that the effect of the provisions was to turn many courts and their decisions into a shambles.
The House will be aware that 30 magistrates have resigned in protest. Police officers and lawyers have denounced the new law in the most forceful terms. It is frustrating for police officers, and for the public, to see criminals arrested and brought before the courts, only to find that the courts are forced to do no more than fine them. The courts release them due to the Criminal Justice Act. The Act has more regard for inmates of overcrowded prisons than it has for the victims of crime on council housing estates, for example.
I know that many Conservative Members were elected in the belief that a Conservative Government would be tougher on crime. I suspect that it must be galling for them that Labour can criticise the Cabinet for presiding over a doubling of crime, and for passing the most liberal piece of legislation on crime in the form of a Criminal Justice Act. The credibility of the Government's policy on law and order is at stake.
As an Opposition Member, it gives me no great pleasure to say that the Government are weak on law and order—well, perhaps a little pleasure. I know that it is the people who are the victims of this weakness. My constituents, for example, are the victims of increasing burglaries, car thefts and vandalism—crimes which are sometimes committed by criminals who were saved from prison by the Criminal Justice Act.
The Home Secretary has said that he will revisit the Act. He gives no date and we cannot afford to spare him the time, during which criminals who deserve to go to prison will be protected from prison. This is a time for urgent action, not prevarication. While the Home Secretary consults, debates, prevaricates and waits, victims of crime will suffer. As I have said, the Bill could be enacted quickly. It is designed to protect the victims of criminals, criminals who should have been sent to prison within the terms of the Criminal Justice Act, but were not. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Jimmy Boyce and Mr. Paddy Tipping.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

Mr. Mike O'Brien accordingly presented a Bill to amend sections 1 and 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to enable the Courts to take account of relevant factors when dealing with custodial sentences and related matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 May, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

Chairman of Ways and Means (Ruling)

Madam Speaker: It will help the House to know that I have not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).

Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the Chairman of Ways and Means, having selected Amendment 27 to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which has support from honourable Members on both sides of the House, having called a Right honourable Member to speak on that amendment, and having allowed a debate upon it to take place, should then have decided, contrary to normal practice, not to permit a division to take place upon that amendment, thus denying the House an opportunity to reach a decision on an issue relating to the applicability of the Protocol on Social Policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty, a protocol which Her Majesty's Government held to be so important that it sought and obtained a special opt-out from it for the United Kingdom; and, in the light of these considerations, and the long term significance of this ruling for parliamentary debates on all future legislation, calls upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to reconsider his ruling forthwith, and to permit the Committee to reach a decision on that amendment.
First, I wish to make it clear that the motion is supported by 80 hon. Members who represent opinion in all parts of the House. It represents the only way in which the House can register its opinion of a decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not possible to appeal to Madam Speaker in respect of decisions taken by the Chairman.
Those of us who have signed the motion believe that it is a profoundly mistaken ruling and that the statement made by the Chairman has the most serious implications for the rights of hon. Members and their constituents in the future. It relates solely and simply to that one ruling, and invites the House to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means to reconsider it. It is nothing more than that. It is not a motion of censure on the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is widely respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially for the way in which he has chaired the debates on the Bill.
I shall never forget that, at the outset of the Committee stage, the Chairman invited me and other interested Members to go to his room so that he could hear our points of view and explain his approach. I have never in my life known that to happen in connection with any Bill going into Committee. The motion is therefore nothing whatever to do with his impartiality; it is a question of his judgment in this one ruling.

Sir David Steel: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to correct his opening statement that the motion that he has moved has support in all parts of the House? That is not true.

Mr. Benn: It depends whether one is speaking geographically or in terms of political parties. Geographically, it has support from all sides.
This is a motion for the House as a whole to consider. It is not, and should not be seen as, a matter of party controversy, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has not applied a whip to members of his party to prevent them from supporting the motion.
This motion is exactly the same as an appeal to an appeal court in order to consider a judgment from a lower court. It follows closely a similar motion moved by Sir Elwyn Jones in 1972, when the House was debating the European Communities Bill. The issue then related to rulings by the then Chairman about his selection of amendments to the Bill. In moving the motion, Sir Elwyn—later the Lord Chancellor—said this—

Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: Certainly.

Mr. Spicer: I am most grateful. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who share many of the anxieties that he has in this matter, will not be voting with him on the motion—not only out of respect for the Chair but also because we believe that the fault for this issue very largely lies with hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench? They have been consistently tabling new clauses which are seen to be substitutes for amendment No. 27. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not push the motion to a vote at the end of the day.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has not heard the case yet. If he has already reached a view on the basis of a few introductory words, it gives an indication, as civil servants would say, of the way his mind is moving. He should hear the argument before reaching a final view.
When Sir Elwyn Jones moved his motion of censure against Sir Robert Grant-Ferris—who was as popular as the present Chairman of Ways and Means—this is what he said:
The Chairman's interpretation of the rules of order therefore is quite crucial to the whole role and function of Parliament and this House in its consideration of this historic and unprecedented Bill.
That was the European Communities Bill.
 "The Chairman himself rightly described it yesterday as one of the most fundamental and important Bills which have ever been before the House of Commons. If the Ruling stands unamended and unqualified by subsequent action, it will as a matter of order muzzle proper consideration and decision by this House on a Bill which, if it becomes law, will restrict the power of Parliament to debate and resolve: first, questions vital to the finances and economy of our country; secondly, important changes in our law; thirdly, the control by the House over public expenditure; fourthly, restrictions which will be placed on the rights and powers of our courts of law —matters which affect every subject in the land.
If as a matter of order Parliament can be so circumscribed that important Amendments which the Opposition have tabled cannot be made debatable, the consequence will be to reduce the role of this House in the consideration of the issues raised by this momentous Bill to discussion merely of the comparatively trivial and superficial."—[Official Report, 1 March 1972; Vol. 832, c. 434–35.]

Mr. Tom King: Is there not an essential difference between this Bill and the right hon. Gentleman's analogy? He knows that no amendments were made to the European Communities Bill, and that there was no Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman says that there should be an opportunity for appeal to another court. One reason why a number of us find the motion deeply offensive is that the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has another opportunity to make his arguments without seeking to impugn the impartiality and judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Benn: On the latter point, I have made it absolutely clear that I am not impugning the impartiality of the Chairman of Ways and Means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not. I gave the Chairman a copy of the speech that I am making so that he could read it in advance of the debate. I am making the point that the only way in which the House can query the judgment of a Chairman or Of the Speaker is to table a motion. It is absurd to say that that is impugning the impartiality of the Chair. As the right hon. Gentleman will learn, if he allows me to finish my speech, the issue is very similar to the one in 1972.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman listed the apocalyptic consequences which Sir Elwyn saw if the Chairman's ruling was upheld. The Chairman's ruling was upheld. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those consequences followed?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman, who is a passionate supporter of the European Community, does not realise that everything that was said by Elwyn Jones was correct in terms of the superior power of Community law over European law, which is what that Bill was all about, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has followed the debates on issues to which he is so committed. Perhaps that is why he was able to support earlier legislation on this matter.
This debate is not about the merits of amendment No. 27 but about the right of the House to reach a decision upon it. It is not about the merits of the social chapter, or the protocol on social policy, but about the right of the House to give its judgment upon it. It is not about the merits of the Bill itself, or of the Maastricht treaty, but about whether the House should be able to amend it in one important respect.
I do not intend to dwell in great detail on the issue, apart from saying that the social chapter is a very important part of the agreement that was reached by the other 11 member states. It is an issue to which the Government, as my motion makes clear, are opposed. They wish to be at the heart of everything in Europe, except social policy.
According to article 1 of the social protocol agreement of the treaty on European union,
The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high unemployment and the combatting of exclusion. To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures which take account of diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations, and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economies.
The social chapter—I list the headings only—deals with the improvement of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety; working conditions; the information and consultation of workers; equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities so as to ensure that each member state shall maintain the principle of equal pay for male and female workers; social security and social protection of workers; protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated; representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers; conditions of employment, and so on.
It is a very important protocol. The Government are determined to prevent it from applying to this country. I do not comment upon its merits, but it is an issue so important to the Government that they persuaded the other 11 member states to let them off having to apply it. That is the Government's position. The Opposition's position, by contrast, is that my right hon. Friends attach great importance to the social chapter. I do not even comment at this point on whether they are right or wrong, but there can be no dispute that that is what the party of which I am a member wants.
When the Chairman of Ways and Means called a group of amendments which was headed by amendment No. 7 and which contained amendment No. 27, he knew perfectly well that that was the occasion on which these great issues would be debated. On 20 January, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said:
Amendment No. 7 is a probing amendment which we intend ultimately to withdraw … I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 27 on which, in due course, we shall press the Committee to a vote.
He then read out amendment No. 27, which would, of course, change the relationship.
We now come to the nub of the matter, because we are talking about an important parliamentary difference of opinion which is not able to be resolved by voting on amendment No. 27. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland also said:
The Bill excludes Britain from provisions which our 11 partners have agreed to facilitate greater protection for employed people in their working conditions, better rights of consultation and information, equality of treatment and opportunity for men and women, and the integration into the labour force of long-term unemployed people, including disabled workers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), then made an important statement. He said:
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the terms of the amendment, United Kingdom law would not conform to the treaty's provisions, so it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify that treaty".
My right hon. Friend responded at once, as I would have expected. He said:
I … willingly explain … As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I would not move the amendment on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and my other hon. Friends if we did not fully understand its implications. Those implications would be to remove the protocol on social policy, which refers to the exclusion of the social chapter from the treaty. That would require Her Majesty's Government to negotiate with the other 11 Community members … Of course, I recognise that that would present Her Majesty's Government with a dilemma, but we have taken the precaution to check that the other 11 member states would be happy for that outcome to obtain." —[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 402–03.]
One cannot imagine a more fundamental question.
We now come to the Chairman's latest ruling. On Thursday last week, he said:
to be selectable for a separate Division the purport of an amendment needs to have been substantially covered during the course of the debate on the group in which it has been included."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222, c. 961.]
Amendment No. 27 was the main debate, and no one can honestly believe that amendment No. 27 passed almost unnoticed in a clutch of amendments about the social chapter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, ever quick to point to the importance of what had been announced by the Chairman, replied using stronger language than I would use. He said:
Many people far beyond the confines of the Chamber will feel that the House of Commons has been cheated of a legitimate reason to have a vote. I do not use that word lightly, but because I am singularly unconvinced—I believe that the majority of the House is unconvinced—about the reasons for your decision."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222, c. 963.]
This is a major issue, a major ruling which prevents a vote, and a clear statement by my right hon. Friend that it is his view and that of others that the House has been cheated.
On Monday, again offering to be helpful—he has genuinely aimed to be helpful throughout—the Chairman made a further statement. I shall not say "reasons" because Chairmen do not give reasons. He said—this is the nub of the motion:
the Chair must have regard to a number of factors, including the Committee's debates, the clarity of effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill which, if brought into effect, must be both workable and understandable."— [Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]
If we do not challenge that ruling, the terms "workable" and "understandable"—as I hope to show—will remain in the rules of the House for all time and all Bills. How can I tell the electorate in Chesterfield and people who want the Bill but with the social chapter that they cannot vote on it because the Chairman of Ways and Means says that an amendment that would bring Britain into line with every other country is not workable or understandable? It is the most workable and most understandable amendment that one could find; it is the one that 11 other countries in the Community have accepted. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman insists, but I do not want to detain the House for too long.

Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is making great play of the importance of adhesion to the social chapter. Why does the fact that the House will have a chance to vote on the social chapter on new clause 74 not satisfy his keen interest in the subject?

Mr. Benn: I am trying to avoid dwelling on the merits of the argument in order to concentrate on the parliamentary aspects of the matter. What should happen when the leader of a major Opposition party puts his name at the head of an amendment which is accepted by the Chair, and the party spokesman begins by saying that he will concentrate solely on that amendment? There are masses of ways of dealing with every issue, but that was the one chosen by the Opposition party.
Before I deal with the long-term implications, I shall consider briefly the arguments against voting. One, which has been repeated by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), is that the motion would somehow require the Chairman to resign, because it would impugn his impartiality. The argument has nothing to do with that. It is about three words that the Chairman used—"workable and understandable".
It is also said that a vote would not work because part of the Bill has already been passed. That is the point raised by my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party last night. But if the motion is read carefully, it will be seen that it asks "the Chairman … to reconsider … forthwith".
It would be perfectly easy to find a procedural motion to put the matter back in its proper place in the Bill. I am afraid that, if the House votes against our motion, that will make it harder for Madam Speaker to select the same issue on Report. The argument would be put to her that the House had had a chance to reconsider and had rejected it.
Now I come to the wider questions which ought to concern people, and which go well beyond their interest in the Maastricht Bill. The real issue is that, if we leave the ruling in the record, the Chairman will have to consider every amendment to every Bill to decide whether it was "workable and understandable".
With the best will in the world, how does a Chairman know what is workable and understandable, unless he asks the Minister? He will say, "I have an amendment here, Secretary of State. Is it workable?" The Secretary of State will say, "I shall ask my civil servants," or he may say, "I shall ask the Law Officers—and I shall tell you whichever of the two judgments they give me suits me best." The Chairman of Ways and Means cannot decide whether an amendment is workable and understandable, so the ruling puts him at the mercy of the Executive—but the Chairman is our man, not the servant of the Government. That is the issue.
I might add that, if the Speaker of the House of Commons would not accept Bills that were not workable and understandable, a lot of legislation would not have gone through the House at all, including the poll tax legislation and some legislation on pay and other matters introduced by my right hon. Friends—but I shall not go into that now.
The Clerks are like elephants; they never forget. They have already noted the Chairman's ruling. I dug out my "Erskine May"—I have had a copy ever since I was first elected—and page 187 of the current edition says:
The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman has final authority over all points of order arising when he is in the chair and there is no appeal from his ruling to the Speaker.
The Clerk of the House will add a bit to that, in the next edition, which will say, "The Chairman will not allow a vote on any amendment that is not 'workable and understandable'." I do not want to see that written into the rules of the House, because it will affect the Liberal party. After all, most of the Liberals' proposals are neither understandable nor workable, so I confidently expect to have them with me in the Lobby.
It is the minority Members who are affected. After all, it is an official Opposition amendment that has been rejected. What about little parties, tiny parties and minuscule parties? What about Back Benchers? What chance have they of persuading the Chairman, under the influence of the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General, that their little amendment is workable and understandable?

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: Yes, of course I shall, especially in the light of the hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the right hon. Gentleman is successful in browbeating the Chairman of Ways and Means into doing what he thinks is not right, does he believe that using majority power in the House to affect the decision of the Chair is in the interest of minority parties?

Mr. Benn: If I ever had the power to browbeat the Chairman or anyone else, I might have been tempted to do that. I am inviting the House to do what it does every day —to reach a judgment on whether it agrees with a proposal that is before it. I do not know what ideas the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has about how Parliament should be resolved. However, if he does not want majorities to decide, the place should be packed up and given over—[Interruption.] Elections determine the majority and minority parties.

Mr. Alex Salmond: This is a serious point, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will treat it as such. If it is the right hon. Gentleman's case that majorities should always decide what amendments are selected, in normal circumstances that means that the Government will decide every amendment that comes before the House.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Chairman is not independent. The purpose in my proposal is to keep him independent. The House cannot close a debate without a vote, but it is prepared to give the Chairman the right to deny a vote without support. That is the point and the issue.
I know that the atmosphere is highly charged, that the media claim that we are Euro-sceptics and that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has suddenly become a Euro-sceptic because he believes that this is an important parliamentary point. It is an important parliamentary point. In my opinion, it will damage the understanding of our proceedings among the people we represent. With the best will in the world—I have touched on it already—I cannot explain to people outside who want the social chapter to apply in Britain why one Member of the House, the Chairman, can say that it was not workable or understandable.
I am an old parliamentarian. I once moved a motion of this character because the Speaker refused me an emergency debate when military action was contemplated in Oman. I know that, for many hon. Members, procedure is dull and irrelevant. However, I believe that democracy is about procedure. It is not about what we decide, but about how we decide it. That is what the whole democratic argument is about.
Perhaps I am a sentimentalist, but I deeply believe that we have one responsibility above all others, and that is to pass on to those who come after us a decent democratic machinery which can be used by them as we have used it. That democratic machinery allows us to table amendments and have them considered, voted upon and so on.
I finish as I did 35 years ago, when I moved a similar motion against Mr. Speaker Morrison. When all the speeches are forgotten, when the election manifestos are in the British Library, when the Queen's Speeches have disappeared and the Bills have been repealed, "Erskine May" is what this place is about, because it gives us the machinery to decide what we were elected to do. If that is denied by an error of judgment—no more than that—by a Chairman, I think that we shall pay a heavy price for it in future.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I hope it will be thought right, Madam Speaker, that I should rise at once to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and to set out some of the considerations which I believe the House should have in mind in judging what he has said and the motion he has brought before the House.
I do not think that I need to make a long speech, because it seems to me that the central issue is simple and clear: it is the issue of the authority of the Chair, and therefore its capacity to discharge effectively, on behalf of the House as a whole—not least the minority parties—the difficult task which the House as a whole has laid on it.
I note, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to resist that suggestion, but I must say frankly that I do not think he has done so successfully. Nor do I think he can, because in signalling the appearance of this motion, he could not have made his intention clearer, when he asked the Chairman:
If a motion of this kind is tabled, may I take it that you would not feel able to take the Chair of the Committee until the matter was resolved?"—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 41.]
Against that background, no amount of disclaimer, in whatever measured language, can alter the basic fact that the effect, and the intended effect, of this motion is to render it impossible for the Chairman to perform the duties that the House has laid on him unless and until it is defeated or withdrawn. As I said, that is the central issue which the House must resolve—whether it is to sustain the authority of the Chair to do its job.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am surprised by the line that the right hon. Gentleman is taking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used words which are his. Is the Leader of the House saying that, on that Monday when we pursued points of order and had a debate, there was no difference whatever in the accession of the Chair to what we were putting to him or his attitude to us? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman—he was not here, as many hon. Members were not here—that that was no different, because we respect the authority of the Chair in general. It is a matter of judgment on a single issue.

Mr. Newton: I do not accept that for a moment. Although I was not present throughout, I have carefully studied the lengthy points of order that were raised not only on Monday but on other occasions. If I may say so, the Chairman has listened and responded to those points of order with great care and courtesy.
There is the world of difference between legitimately putting points of order to the Chairman, albeit over a long period, and tabling a motion of this sort, which is, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield made absolutely clear in his remarks on Monday, intended to make it impossible for the Chairman to function as the Chairman unless it has been disposed of.
Before I return to that matter, I should say something about the motion. I realise that, in many ways, it is not the central issue. Apart from anything else, it seems to reflect some misapprehension about the procedures of the House with respect to the selection of amendments. I think that this will be common ground.
Standing Order No. 31 is clear: in the Committee of the whole House, the Chairman is given the power—the right


hon. Gentleman fairly said that it is an entirely unfettered power—to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed. That is understood. However, it seemed to render fairly meaningless the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to present his motion as some form of appeal or exercise of appeal rights. If he wishes to institute a right of appeal he should seek to change the Standing Order rather than table motions that criticise the Chair.

Mr. William Cash: Can my right hon. Friend tell me where Standing Order No. 31 gives the right certainly with respect to the selection of amendments and with it the right to choose whether a Division will take place? On page 405 of "Erskine May" and the sub-notes, can he tell me where the practice which has grown up is set out as to the question whether a specific matter should be subjected to a Division? If he would be good enough to do that, I would be interested to hear his comments.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is accepting what I said about Standing Order No. 31, which I shall read to him if he wishes. Sub-section (2) of that Standing Order is absolutely clear:
In committee of the whole House, the Chairman of Ways and Means and either Deputy Chairman shall have the like power"—
to the Speaker in other circumstances—
to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed".
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield also quoted from page 405 of "Erskine May":
It is a common practice to allow several amendments to be discussed together, although they have not all been selected to be moved. The Speaker or chairman may at his discretion call for division one or more of those amendments selected for debate with another or other amendments, if requested to do so.
The key words are "at his discretion".

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way for the moment.
What seems less clear to some, to judge both from the terms of the motion and some of the points of order made recently, is that the power of selection is separate from what the Chairman does when he groups amendments for debate. When he groups amendments, he calls the lead amendment—that is, he selects it under the provisions of Standing Order No. 31—and tells the Committee that, for the convenience of debate, he will allow the discussion of other amendments appearing later on the Order Paper.
Thus, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Chairman of Ways and Means had selected amendment No. 27, that was not strictly the case. As I have just said, the occupant of the Chair selects an amendment when he calls an hon. Member to move it so that the House or Committee can take a decision on it. Amendment No. 27 has not been moved: it was grouped for debate with another amendment on which the Committee has voted.
Nor is it correct to say, as the motion does, that it was contrary to the normal practice not to allow a Division to take place on an amendment which has been debated. Many amendments are grouped for debate with selected amendments; whether they are subsequently selected for a

separate Division is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, as is clear from the extract that I have just quoted from "Erskine May". There is nothing automatic about it.
So when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield claims that the Chair's ruling has some great long-term significance for parliamentary debates on all future legislation, his argument simply does not stand up. The exercise of the Chairman's discretion in respect of amendment No. 27 has been entirely in accordance with the practice of the House, and his ruling has no long-term significance of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Benn: If what the Leader of the House says is to be accepted, the Chairman could have given a simple answer. He could have said, "I will not allow a vote on the amendment. I did not select it." But he did not say that. He said that the amendment was not understandable or workable. That is the difficulty, because "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Speaker or Chairman does not give reasons. I can understand the reason why they do not give reasons. The reasons given in this case were wholly different from the ones which the Leader of the House has cooked up to resist the motion.

Mr. Newton: These are not arguments that I have cooked up, but ones on which I have taken careful advice. They represent a straightforward description, as I understand it and as I am advised, of the procedural position in respect of the amendment.
I should make just one other point about the motion. It is the one brought out by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, in her intervention during my business statement yesterday, and acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield today. It is the simple fact that, because the Committee has finished with the clauses of the Bill and is dealing with the new clauses, it is not possible for the Chairman to do as the motion asks. Indeed, amendment No. 27 has disappeared from the amendment paper.
The whole House knows that it is not the technicalities that are at issue here: it is the fundamental purpose and effect of the motion to which I referred earlier. The House has placed on the Chairman difficult and demanding responsibilities, within terms of reference which the House itself has determined. It has asked him to undertake those responsibilities during proceedings as difficult as any a Chairman has had to face for a long time.
For my part, I will say simply that, on all I have heard, seen and read in Hansard of those proceedings, he has exercised his responsibilities, whether in selecting and grouping amendments, listening and responding to many representations and innumerable points of order, or simply presiding over debate, with great care, great diligence and courtesy.
It is not a question whether any or all of us have liked each and every decision. The Chairman's is in some ways a role which produces a variant of one of the oldest political adages: it is a job in which you cannot please anyone all the time. There have been decisions unpalatable to those who want the social chapter and decisions unpalatable to those who do not. There have been decisions unpalatable to those who strongly support the Bill—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way for the moment —and decisions unpalatable to those who vigorously oppose it. That is the nature of the job. As the Chairman himself put it in responding to a point of order on Monday:
I must and do take every factor into consideration, but at the end of the day the buck stops here: I have to choose the amendments."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 44.]
The point could not have been put better than it was by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) yesterday. He said that the motion sought to establish a dangerous precedent for the House, would have serious implications for the Chair, and is highly unfair to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has conducted himself with good humour and tolerance.
The question for the House is whether it will reject the challenge which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has mounted to the support which the Chairman is entitled to expect, both when we like his decisions and when we do not. If the motion is not withdrawn, as it should be, I urge the House to reject it, and reject it decisively.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: All of us in the House are conscious of the importance of the relationship, balanced as it is between conflict and confidence, that exists between the House and the Chair. As the Leader of the House has just acknowledged, there cannot be an hon. Member here who has not, from time to time, disagreed with a decision of the Chair, even if it is only that the hon. Member believes that the occupant of the Chair has failed to recognise that the debate in hand would be immeasurably enriched by his or her contribution. Equally, every Member recognises the good faith and integrity that the occupants of the Chair bring to their onerous and difficult duties, and the extent to which those duties place them at the centre of the storm when difficult and contentious decisions arise. One such decision and one such ruling is cited in the motion that we are debating.
The whole House and many in the country are well aware that the announcement that there would not be an opportunity for the Committee to vote on amendment No. 27 on the social chapter has caused widespread concern on both sides. Thai concern was fully expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, when the ruling was first given on 30 March. You, Madam Speaker, and the House will recall that further concern was expressed at length in our debates on 15 April and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland moved on that day to report progress on the Bill so that a sustained debate could be held in which our grave concern could be—and was—fully expressed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made it clear then, and we have repeatedly sought to make it clear since, that we are still seeking and will continue to seek an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 before the Bill completes all the stages of its passage through the House. We look for the opportunity for that vote on the Report stage of the Bill, on which decisions have yet to be made.
With all respect to the care and devotion shown by the Chairman of Ways and Means in his conduct of the Committee stage, which we do not criticize—I was pleased by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he moved the motion—we do not accept that amendment No. 27 and new clauses 74 or 75 are alternatives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland explicitly made that case, as can be seen in Hansard. He said:
I do not regard new clause 74"—
or 75—
as an alternative to amendment No. 27, nor do I believe that it can be reasonably or realistically posed in those terms." —[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]

Sir David Steel: Will the right hon. Lady clear up one point? When he moved the motion, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) did not refer to the narrative of how new clauses 74 and 75 appeared on the amendment paper. If the Opposition were so confident of amendment No. 27, why did they table the two new clauses?

Mrs. Beckett: If the right hon. Gentleman had been attending the debates, I am sure that he would know the answer to that question, which is that we regard the subjects covered in the amendment and the new clauses as entirely separate issues. I shall return to that issue later. We believe that the new clauses and the amendment are complementary.
Concern has been expressed that a precedent might be set by the handling of amendment No. 27. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield referred a number of times to the use of the words "workable and acceptable". We can all understand that there might be concern about the juxtaposition of a vote on amendment No. 27 and new clause 75. I am not suggesting that that was the reason for the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, because, as we all know, for reasons that we all understand, the Chair does not give reasons for his or her decisions.
However, the argument might have been considered whereby it was thought that if amendment No. 27 were carried—removing the social protocol—it might remove the occasion for a vote on new clause 75. I can well understand that concern. However, we remain of the view that it would have been quite practical and possible for amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 to be debated separately, and that the one did not require a different decision from the other.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend rightly said that the Chair does not normally give reasons, but part of the trouble is that the Chairman of Ways and Means, wisely or not, appeared on the Scottish television programme, "Scottish Lobby" on 18 April and gave his reasons. I quote from his script:
And just on balance, because it was slightly more workable, I chose to have the debate on new clause 75.
This may be part of the hazard of the Chairman going on television, but a reason was given.

Mrs. Beckett: I would not criticise the Chairman of Ways and Means for his remarks which were no doubt intended to elucidate for the viewer what on earth it is we are going on about in here. I well understand his difficulty in doing so without straying into the territory that my hon. Friend has quoted. However, it would not be right for us to suggest, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did not


mean to do so, that the Chairman had strayed into giving reasons, as that would be a precedent and we all recognise that such a precedent should be avoided.
The Leader of the House said that the motion was not about the technicalities of the issue. I take his point, but he went on to defend at length the judgment that has been made on the vote on amendment No. 27. I must therefore say to him and to the House that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made crystal clear from the Front Bench on behalf of the official Opposition on 19 April, we have not accepted that an amendment that is in order, has been debated and has the official backing of the Opposition—it is tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition—should not be available for decision in the Committee. We do not accept that such a precedent has been set.
We had every reason to expect that there would be a Division. The Chairman of Ways and Means said in Committee:
We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27."— [Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 685]
That carries the connotation that there would be a Division and at that stage no one expected that there would not be a Division on amendment No. 27. He then suggested on television on 18 April that a Division on the amendment might have been expected at one stage. That is the real significance that we attach to the Chairman's remark. It immeasurably strengthens the case for a vote on amendment No. 27 on Report, which is perhaps a way of tidying up this extremely difficult matter.
As was identified yesterday and reiterated by the Leader of the House today, we cannot now proceed, whether or not it is desirable, in the manner proposed by the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. "Erskine May" makes it absolutely plain on page 496 that once the Chairman has put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—and the Question was put on Monday—
No other amendment can be proposed to a clause after this question has been proposed from the Chair.
My right hon. Friend suggested that some procedural method might be found, but he also suggested that we should take "Erskine May" as our bible and "Erskine May" leaves us in no doubt on the matter. That means that the question of an understanding approach to the desire of a majority in the House to decide on amendment No. 27 on Report—we know that there is a majority in the House, because otherwise we would not be having all this difficulty today—must inform our debate and decision.
That brings me to my final point which I hope will be borne in mind, especially by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) sought to place the blame for these difficulties at the door of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had incredible nerve. The scale of the difficulties faced by the Chairman of Ways and Means is the Government's creation.
It was the Government who claimed that amendment No.27 would wreck the Bill and the treaty. It was they who then claimed that, on the contrary, it would make no difference. It was they who brought in the Attorney-General, who failed to answer fully half the questions put

to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), to tell us that this was all of no significance. It was the Government, in the shape of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who went about their usual business of placing ideas in the minds of the Lobby and everyone else to the effect that the Opposition must find another way of raising these issues. And then the Government have the nerve to come to the House and ask why we sought to find other ways to raise them.

Sir David Steel: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman once and I have answered his point. I am almost at the end of my remarks and I do not want to take up too much time. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and be able to make his own speech.
It is the Government, too, who, since the other new clauses have been tabled, have not only continued to cast doubt on the validity of a vote on amendment No. 27 but have claimed that every other amendment or new clause tabled by the Opposition is in some way ineffective. I am certain that it is not the desire of the Chair, but it is most certainly the desire of the Government, to prevent the House from reaching a decision on the social chapter or, if they cannot prevent it, to find a way of discounting or ignoring it. Their manoeuvrings are the direct cause of the difficulties that have understandably been experienced by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
For that reason, because we cannot do what the motion suggests, because the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 is not yet completely lost to us, and because of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield about the respect in which the Chairman of Ways and Means is held in every part of the House, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will follow the usual precedent once concerns of this nature have been aired in debate in the Chamber. I must tell the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that these concerns have been aired on a number of occasions before—by the official Opposition when the Conservative party was the Opposition, by ourselves, and by Back Bench Members on both sides of the House. The phenomenon is not unknown, but usually when such concerns have been aired and such a debate has been held, the motion is either withdrawn or negated by voice only and not pressed to a Division.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield told the House that the only way to bring the matter before the House and to express concern was to table the motion. That is his view; it may or may not be the view of all Members. Unquestionably, however, he is not required to press the motion to a Division because he has brought it before the House, and I hope that he will not do so. If he chooses to do so, I must tell him that I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a matter? I regret having to do so, but you are the only person in a position to make such a ruling.
All three speakers so far have referred to a Report stage for the Bill. I want you to rule on whether the Report stage of a Bill that has been considered in a Committee of the whole House is different from the Report stage of a Bill considered in a normal Standing Committee. In past years,


I have moved more amendments in Committee that have been found to be defective than I have had hot dinners, but subsequently I have been able to find opportunities on Report to raise exactly the same issues.
For the avoidance of doubt, can you tell us whether the procedures are any different? Does the content of amendment No. 27—whether the wording is the same does not matter—mean that we are precluded from considering such an amendment on Report? It could only be selected by you, Madam Speaker, so it is only you who can give the ruling. Does the fact that the Bill has been considered on the Floor of the House prevent the House from coming to a conclusion on the precise contents of amendment No. 27?

Madam Speaker: The whole situation and the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman are very hypothetical. In order not to leave the House in any doubt, I will make no ruling whatever. I will determine it when these matters are put before me at the appropriate time.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I listened with care to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). If I heard her correctly, she said that she was actively looking for other ways of dealing with the matter than amendment No. 27. I suspect some of us can understand why.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House quoted extensively from pages 404 and 405 of the procedural book, "Erskine May". Unfortunately, he finished at the end of the second paragraph on page 405, whereas to me the most important point is at the beginning of the third paragraph:
Selection is made by the Chair in such a way as to bring out the salient points of criticism".
Therein for me lies the difficulty.
May I draw the attention of the House to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, hardly as long as the 63,500 words of the treaty, and to something which does not normally get much attention, the explanatory memorandum which says:
The Bill will have no direct financial effect in the United Kingdom.
I invite the House to reflect on whether that is so. I suspect that it is not true and never has been. Only amendment No. 27 bears on the matter.
My constituents in Stroud will be obliged, through VAT, to pay moneys to the advantage of countries which are presumed to have the benefit of the social chapter. In short, my constituents in Stroud will, through VAT, push money across to Sicily, Sardinia or other areas which are regarded as suffering poverty.
Many people say that there is an opt-out from the social chapter. What we mean is that we are giving the other 11 nations the opportunity to have a social chapter because they believe that it is in their interests. Perhaps the two great lies in the debate are, first, that opt-outs mean very much and, secondly, that if we do not have Maastricht we will not get inward investment. Perhaps the opt-out will be effective but by the time we have seen article 100A, on majority voting, and by the time that we have looked at health and safety legislation, and, most of all, the European Court of Justice, our opt-out may not be as effective as many think. Only amendment No. 27 addresses those points. If it is not called, we will get no opportunity to make our view known on behalf of our constituents.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am sympathetic to many of the views which my hon. Friend has expressed in the House in recent weeks. Can he explain why the issue cannot be raised on Report?

Mr. Knapman: May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that there is a movement towards new clauses 74 and 75? No doubt we shall be asked to look at new clauses which have not yet even been framed. The debate will be at a later stage. Therefore, there is little chance of amendment No. 27 being called by Madam Speaker at the appropriate time; of course, Madam Speaker, that will be a matter for you.
New clause 74 says:
This Act shall come into force only when the House of Commons has come to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown".
At this stage we have no idea what that motion might say.
The motion is not to me a form of challenge to authority. I speak as one who has been here for the 21 days of Committee proceedings. It is encouraging that the longer we carry on debating the Maastricht treaty, the more hon. Members are here.

Mr. Tony Marlow: New clause 74 says that the powers of the legislation shall not take effect until there has been a debate on the social chapter. If the new clause is accepted in Committee, does not that make it difficult for the Chair to accept amendment No. 27 on Report? Is not that the problem?

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That must be so, and it was among the points that I was trying to make.
I promised in my note to you this morning, Madam Speaker, that I would not detain the House for more than one or two minutes. You will know that the whole House holds you in the greatest respect because we know that you are the guardian of Back Benchers' interests. My constituents are being asked, probably for the first time, to have their taxes sent abroad—I still feel that Sicily and Sardinia are abroad—at the very time when our county council is short of money for education. The matter is important and I want an opportunity to vote on it. Unless my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can contradict me, I say that amendment No. 27 is the only one that deals with that matter.

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall begin with five short general observations which will enable my subsequent specific comments to be even briefer. The way in which the House deals with treaties may certainly be defective. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) often draws attention to that in his not infrequent comments and criticisms of the Crown prerogative. However, that is not one of the responsibilities of the Chairman of Ways and Means, Who must handle debates according to the rules as they are. Neither do I understand it to be an objective of the Labour party to change those rules, although since that party is in an evolutionary phase my information on that may be dated.
Yesterday and today the right hon. Member for Chesterfield compared his motion with that moved by the late Sir Elwyn Jones in 1972 and said that it was,
supported by all Opposition Members."—[Official Report, 20 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 184.]


The right hon. Gentleman's memory is faulty. If he consults the Division lists for 1 and 6 March 1972 he will find my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal party. We voted against such motions and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who was then the Whip of the Liberal party, spoke against it at that time. At that time his constituency was Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that the Chairman of Ways and Means gave an interview on 18 April on the "Scottish Lobby" programme. However, I think that the interview was on 3 April. I have a transcript, which seems bland and inoffensive. He gave that interview with the best of intentions. However, I think that, while it is accepted on all sides that a Chairman or, indeed, you, Madam Speaker, should not have to give reasons for decisions because of the inevitable disputation that will follow, television, radio and press in-depth probing interviews should not be taken up but left to other hon. Members who are not subject to such inhibitions.
A long time ago the late Horace King "ignited" the Blackpool illuminations. I did not greatly approve of that and interviews have potentially a much greater detonatory effect. Fourthly, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) gave an interview this morning. It is difficult for me to comment on it because I was in the land of nod when the interview took place and have had to depend on my more wide-awake colleagues to tell me about it.[Interruption.] Perhaps we could ignore the rumbustiousness of some Opposition Front-Bench Members. I am told that the hon. Gentleman said that the Chairman of Ways and Means was in cahoots with the Government on closure motions and that, in the tailoring phrase of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the whole thing was stitched up. My version of the interview may be slightly wrong and if so I will gladly withdraw.
One could say that I am in a uniquely appropriate position to comment since I have been in cahoots with the Government throughout debate on the Bill on timing and procedure and I know what it is all about. It is not true that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in cahoots with the Government. Throughout the progress of the Bill the timing of closures has been decided solely by the Chairman of Ways and Means according to his judgment of an appropriate time for debate. The Government have known no more about it than anyone else in the House. It is quite wrong for an hon. Member to make such allegations.
To my sure and certain knowledge, throughout our proceedings in Committee the Chairman has behaved with impeccable impartiality and has given no advance indication of his intentions to any Member that he was unwilling to give to another. I shall give that point the added stress that membership of a minority party allows me to give. We are extremely sensitive to any possibility of collusion between the Chairman and the Government and to the possibility of the Chairman being cavalier in the treatment of minority opinion. The Plant committee, which was established by the Labour party, has again drawn attention to the fact that if our support in the country was reflected in the House we would have more

than 100 Members. In the light of that, I repeat that the Chairman of Ways and Means has behaved with impeccable impartiality.

Mr. Knapman: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) which are contained in Monday's record of our proceedings. I can confirm those, as can my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran).

Sir Russell Johnston: That is a somewhat opaque comment. I regret that at my age instant recall is now denied to me.—[Laughter.]

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As one who suffers from a similar difficulty, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that all the allegations, which he has correctly denied, are entirely hearsay, would not be allowed in the High Court or the lower courts of Scotland, and should not be allowed in the High Court of Parliament. They are a great slight on the Chair.

Sir Russell Johnston: I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I do not think that he and I have similar problems; we may have parallel problems.
It is certainly true that the whole Committee could have been handled in a different way. That would have made not only the job of the Chairman less stressful but would have enabled the Committee to have a more engaged, more real, debate.
I have been taking part in debates on the European Community for two decades. They have reached the stage of a sort of religious disputation in which nobody ever wins. Nevertheless, I have come to respect the consistent opposition of people such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). His constituency is no longer called Stepney and Poplar. They are minorities, like me. They deserve to be heard and their arguments must be addressed.

Mr. Michael Lord: Although his memory may not be what it was, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a fair man. Amendment No. 27 has been the most talked about amendment in the debate, and the amendment most discussed in the press and on television. It has been the amendment that Ministers have talked about, and debated on television. Being a fair man, does he not think that it is unreasonable that the House of Commons will not be allowed to vote on an amendment of such importance?

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall come to that point shortly.
I was talking about the handling of the Committee. Given its official support for Maastricht, the Labour party should have sat down with the Government and the minority parties and agreed a sensible timetable, and a limitation on speech length. I know that, in Committee, speech length is not normally limited, but it makes no sense for the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to speak for hours. Apart from anything else, it does not progress the debate in any rational fashion. It was wrong that the Labour party felt unable to do so, mainly because of its Euro-sceptics. While both major parties frequently extol the virtues of the House as a unique example of democracy, they have been guilty of being unwilling to


reform its procedures to make debate more of a meaningful discussion and less of a pyrotechnic confrontation.

Mr. George Robertson: This is not perhaps a terribly substantial point, but the hon. Gentleman spoke about the conduct of the Committee, through which I, like him, have sat virtually in its entirety. He made one of the first speeches, on one of the first amendments, and took an hour to do so. Is that the sort of limitation on speech length that he wants?

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his not terribly substantial intervention on my not terribly substantial point. I remind him that on that occasion I gave way to 24 interventions—no wonder the speech took so long.
The motion is about the refusal of the Chairman of Ways and Means to allow a vote on amendment No. 27. My party argued for a vote on amendment No. 27 because we want the House to vote on whether the United Kingdom should accede to the social chapter of Maastricht. In practice, it has turned out to be difficult to find an appropriate form of words to ensure that. The Attorney-General told us that amendment No. 27 would not have such an effect. Indeed, he said that it would have no effect at all. Presumably, unless we have a vote of no confidence in the Attorney-General—as far as I know no one has suggested that—his decision has to be accepted.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those constitutional experts who are well acquainted with the constitutional usage and practice of the Law Officers of the Crown are deeply disturbed at the way in which the Attorney-General was brought into the argument? If anybody wishes to follow that up, he will find that there are substantial criticisms of the manner in which the Attorney-General was involved. No doubt, in due course, those will emerge.

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a limited motion. It deals only with the exercise of the Chair's discretion on amendment No. 27. I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who has the Floor of the House, and any others who are called to speak in the debate will limit their comments to the expressions in the motion before us.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I will leave what the hon. Member for Stafford has said, apart from saying that I have met few constitutional experts who do not spend most of the time being disturbed.
We are left with the judgment of the Attorney-General, so what does the Chairman of Ways and Means do then, poor thing? He is faced with that as a fact that he has to take into account. He knows that the House wants a vote on the social chapter, but his job is not to arrange that but to examine the amendments that are put before the Committee with that intention. What does he do when faced with an amendment that, according to the highest legal authority in the land, has no effect? His job is not to judge whether amendments will be carried but whether, if they are carried, they produce a clear result that can be implemented in law.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)) proclaimed at length the undesirability of being confined to what is workable and understandable. That is not an

unreasonable confination, if there is such a word, and it would have been a happy thing if it had been applied to him over many years.

Mr. Benn: Without implying partiality by the Chairman—a point that neither the hon. Gentleman nor have put forward—the hon. Gentleman said that the Chairman was guided by the law in deciding whether to allow a vote on amendment No. 27 because of the question of workability. Is that the road along which the House wishes to go, with the Chairman depending on the Law Officers—I made that point in my speech—to know whether he should call an amendment? That would be a dangerous course to follow.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman knows, probably better than me, that the Attorney-General is supposed to advise the House, not the Government. He is supposed to tell the House what, in his judgment, the law means. Therefore, I suppose that I would have to answer yes to the right hon. Gentleman.
None of us comes out of this covered with glory. Those of us who wanted a clear vote on the social chapter have failed to find a form of words to achieve that. The Liberal Democrats are also culpable in that, but the Labour party has far greater resources than we have, although both of us have equal access to the Clerks. Perhaps on Report we shall be successful. I hope so because I want such a vote.
We also have to recognise that, even if we achieve that elusive form of words on Report, such a vote would be carried only with the support of two groups. The first consists of Conservatives who are against Maastricht and the social chapter but who would vote against their views on the social chapter to achieve their objective of defeating Maastricht. The second consists of Labour Members who do not want Maastricht at all, even with the social chapter, and who will vote on the social chapter with the aim of defeating the whole book.
The justification for continuing through these byzantine tunnels and accepting some strange allies is the attempt to find some way to make the Government choose between having Maastricht with the social chapter or no Maastricht. I accept that that has been the object of my party and those on the Opposition Front Bench. None of that is either the fault or the responsibility of the Chair.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said that the House had been—"cheated" was the word that he used.

Mr. Benn: No. I was quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

Sir Russell Johnston: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman quoted with approbation. I do not see how he or anyone can say that and simultaneously claim that what he proposes casts no doubt on the Chairman's judgment.

Mr. Benn: I must correct the hon. Gentleman, because he misheard. I quoted my right hon. Friend the, Member for Copeland but I said that that was stronger language than I would have used. I would not have used the word "cheat" in respect of a decision by the Chair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that allegation because it would be unfair to give a false impression.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am not going to argue that something is when it was not. However—

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend was very careful.

Sir Russell Johnston: It does not matter. At the end of the day, whatever the right hon. Member for Chesterfield says, the essence of the debate comes down to this: do we trust the judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means or not? I trust it, and, if necessary, I shall vote that way in the Lobby tonight.

Sir Peter Emery: The debate is obviously not about Europe or about amendment No. 27, which is otiose because there is no way that it can be included in the Bill as it stands. Rather surprisingly, the debate is, in itself, one of the more important debates that have been held this Session, and the reason should be clear. We have no written constitution. The method and operation of Parliament are not because of a written constitution; in the place of a written constitution, we have precedents and procedure. It is the procedure of the House that governs the working of this place and ultimately safeguards the liberties of us all, both within the House and outside. That is why our procedures must be followed and must, in my judgment, be supported on all occasions.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that, in my view, the debate must end with an overwhelming vote of confidence in the Chairman of Ways and Means. There must be no escape, such as the withdrawal of the motion or a failure to appoint Tellers, which would prevent a vote taking place. We must not allow the matter to be left hanging around, suggesting an entirely unsatisfactory outcome to the debate. The reason for that is absolute. Indeed, it goes to the heart of our parliamentary system.
Parliament works not because it exists but because it is allowed to operate by the mutual consent of its Members, who over many years have established a procedure that allows individual Members, often of highly conflicting views, to be able to conduct debates and consider legislation in a way that enables Governments to govern and Opposition Members to debate fairly in expressing their points of view.
To that end, Madam Speaker, we elect you and senior Chairmen—they are similarly elected by the House—to rule over us and to ensure that debates and the general proceedings of the House are conducted in a proper and orderly manner, as established by the procedure that has been put in place.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, for allowing me to intervene. Will he concede, particularly as the motion before us is a rarity—I think that the previous debate on such a motion took place about 20 years ago—that the procedure of the House allows for the safety valve of a debate of this sort? Such debates provide guidance for Chairmen in future and are integral to the practice of the House. They are therefore permissible, whatever the merits or demerits of any such motion.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The motion is in order. Indeed, we would not be debating it if it were not. However, when the authority of the Chair is questioned, as it is in the motion, we undermine the structure that I am determined to defend.
Those who claim that the motion is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), the Chairman of Ways and Means, do not live in

the real world. It must be seen as an attack on the Chairman's impartiality and the integrity of the Chair. It is—[Interruption.] Those who say no should listen for a moment. If the motion were passed, the Chairman, being a man of honour, would have no alternative but to resign. That needs to be clearly understood.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: No. Let the right hon. Gentleman sit for a moment.
As I have said, it must be clearly understood that the Chairman would have to resign. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, that is the action that an honourable man would take.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is hyping up the issue beyond reason, and I shall tell the House why. There are many occasions when the House varies an earlier decision. That happens quite often. We are the High Court of Parliament, and in this instance we are reviewing the judgment of one of the Officers of the House. No judge resigns when his decision is overturned on appeal.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make it personal, which is the great corruption of modern politics. It seems that we cannot discuss principle without the discussion being turned into a punch-up with someone. That is something that will destroy democracy perhaps more readily than anything else.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman may not understand what honour is all about. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that, if the motion were passed, we would put the Chairman in an untenable position. We have seen it happen once before, and that will be in the memory of some right hon. and hon. Members. The issue did not result in a motion, but the then Chairman of Ways and Means decided that he must resign.
Has the Chairman of Ways and Means erred? I suggest that his only error, being the extremely nice man he is, has been to try to explain things to his critics and to set out the reasons for his decisions to show his impartiality. Indeed, some of his decisions have certainly not pleased Her Majesty's Government.
Had the Chairman not been so reasonable—had he not tried to make others understand the reasons for his decisions—today's problems would probably not have arisen. The Chairman could have held to the time-honoured procedure that has been established over the years, which is that the Chair does not give reasons for the selection of amendments for debate or for Divisions. If anyone is in doubt about that, let him remember that reference has already been made to page 405 of "Erskine May".

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have referred the House to an exactly similar matter that arose when Sir Charles MacAndrew was Chairman of Ways and Means. Mr. Eric Fletcher said that, if the then Chairman ruled that certain amendments could be discussed together, that could only be on the
assumption that they have all been selected for discussion.
He added:
If you rule that certain Amendments can be discussed together … surely it follows that, if any Member wishes to vote on any Amendment that has been discussed, he is entitled to ask that there should be a Division.


The then Chairman replied:
Certainly not. That has never been the rule. I have been doing this work for many years and this has always been the rule that I am now applying. It is often indicated, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just done, that a Division is desired, and I am allowing a Division on two Amendments. Otherwise, all that would happen would be that my selection would be very much narrower.
Mr. Fletcher asked:
The Chair has power of selection?",
and the then Chairman replied yes. Later, Mr. Fletcher said:
I suggest, in all seriousness, that once the Chair has ruled that certain Amendments have been selected for discussion, and might all be discussed together, the Chair has no authority to decide that there shall not be a Division on any of the selected Amendments.
The then Chairman replied:
The Chair has every power to do so. Up to that point, there has only been one Amendment called. If the Chair does not call any of the others there can be no Divisions. It is very simple. Now we had better get on with the business.
Mr. Tom Proctor, whom some of us will remember, intervened as follows:
Is it now contended that the Chair has two selections, selection for discussion and selection for voting? I have never heard of two before.
The then Chairman said:
Well, the hon. Member has heard of them today."—[Official Report, 14 February 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1459–61.]
The same issue arises this afternoon.

Mr. Dalyell: I want to be clear on who the Chairman of the Procedure Committee was referring to in relation to the censure of a Chairman of Ways and Means. Was he referring to the MacAndrew incident or something else?

Sir Peter Emery: I said that there was not a censure motion. There was a debate concerning Sir Gordon Touche, who resigned.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point? Was there an amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition? It might be helpful to know that.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not think that that matters.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the answer to the question no?

Sir Peter Emery: I shall answer the question in my own way, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so. He has enough to say in the House without making my speeches for me.
I say in response to my hon. Friend that selection rests entirely with the Chair. If that were not so, junior Members, or Members representing minority parties, would never get any consideration. It must be on the matter of the amendment itself. Page 490 of "Erskine May" states:
The Chairman may at his discretion allow separate divisions on one or more of the subsequent amendments 
It seems to me that those who speak in favour of the motion are directly challenging the discretion and impartiality of the Chair. By questioning the discretion they are undermining that authority. The motion must be rejected. I again stress that the motion must be defeated by a massive vote so that it is clear beyond peradventure that we have absolute confidence in the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Denzil Davies: As we have been reminded, the motion is about the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means not to allow a vote on amendment No. 27. To some extent, the motion is a product of the difficulties that the Committee and the Chairman have faced, and the frustration that the Committee has felt because we are trying to debate a Bill which incorporates a treaty that will have an effect on much, if not most, of the commercial, financial and economic life of the nation.
The real legislation that we are debating is not the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, but the treaty of European union. We cannot amend it. We can exclude. but we cannot amend. The last time something similar happened was 21 years ago, and it happened then for the same reason. Sir Elwyn Jones moved a motion—I forget the words—regretting the lack of selection of amendments because we were in precisely the same situation then as now: the Bill that we were debating was not the real Bill. We were debating the treaty of Rome—that was the real Bill—and we could not amend it then. I am not sure that then we could even exclude parts of it. That Bill was slightly different from this one, but we were experiencing the same frustrations and problems.
Sir Elwyn's motion was not a personal criticism of the then Chairman of Ways and Means, just as the present motion is not a personal criticism of our Chairman.
The Standing Committees of the House are there to debate Bills. Bills are presented after they have been given a Second Reading, and Second Reading Bills are draft Bills. They are completed after consultation with Ministers —sometimes after White or Green Papers—but they are draft Bills. They then go before a Committee. The function of the House is to debate them, to try to change them and to make representations to Ministers. It is the opportunity that hon. Members have to change legislation.
Again, we cannot do that here. We are not debating a "Second Reading" Bill; we are debating, in effect, a "Third Reading" Bill. The treaty of European union is a Third Reading Bill which cannot be changed. That is one reason for the frustration, and one reason why we are here today in the same circumstances as 21 years ago.
The problem has been compounded—I make no criticism, although I will criticise on another occasion—by the fact that the official Opposition—except in regard to the social chapter—is in general agreement with Her Majesty's Government. The House works best when the official Opposition are opposing.
The Executive in Britain sits in the legislature, and I think that it is a good system. I do not go along with the trendy views of The Independent and The Guardian and the chattering classes that it is a terrible system. Because the Executive sits in the legislature, the Executive in the main has control over the legislature. It has enormous power, but that power is limited, checked and balanced by the fact that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, in general, oppose. In this case, they do not, apart from on the social chapter, thus increasing the problem that the power of the Executive over this legislation is even greater than it normally is within our legislative and constitutional system. That also has contributed to our frustrations and, in the end, to this motion.
In addition to those difficulties, we have also had problems with the debates. The Chairman of Ways and


Means had no alternative but to make groupings of amendments. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the Chairman of Ways and Means saw us in his room and we discussed these matters. Because we could only exclude chunks of the Bill, he had no option but to group a large number of amendments together.
I think that Ministers treated those debates as if they were Second Reading debates; certainly the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), has done so. I will exonerate the Foreign Secretary and partly exonerate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury from this criticism, but in general Ministers have treated them as Second Reading debates. They have intervened early, not replied to the debates and often replied to only a few of the points raised. The cue was taken by my hon. Friends, quite naturally, because that is the way the system works.
As to the question of closures, many of us were cut off in full flight. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was actually writing his speech on the Front Bench, but he did not have a chance to speak. I have spoken to people outside the House who watch our proceedings on satellite and cable television on something called the parliamentary channel. They have expressed amusement, and asked "Who is that gentleman who so often jumps up? He sits not far from where the Chairman of Ways and Means sits. Sometimes he is a little gentleman, sometimes a large gentleman, but when hon. Members speak he suddenly jumps up and that is the end of the debate." I have to try to explain that the gentleman is not a lord high executioner. I think the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has done the same thing on one or two occasions.

Madam Speaker: May I jump up and intervene? I am being very tolerant, but the right hon. Gentleman has had a long introduction to what he is really seeking to say. He will understand that I have many hon. Members to call. I hope he will now speak more directly to the motion.

Mr. Davies: The way in which the closure was operated added to our frustration.
Amendment No. 27 is not only about the operation of the social chapter, but about money, because it deals with the part of the treaty relating to payments to be made by Her Majesty's Government towards the administration of the social chapter by the other 11 member states. So there are two factors involved which unite the different groups in the House who are against the Maastricht treaty.
The problem started, I am sorry to say, when the Chairman of Ways and Means appeared to most of us to have agreed that there would be a vote on amendment No. 27. It would be unfair to subject the Chairman's statement to a kind of Byzantine textual criticism, because, by definition, the Chairman's job is to react to certain situations and circumstances.
The Chairman of Ways and Means said:
We are some way off a vote.
Later, he said:
I am minded to take seriously the need for a further debate".
To the Chairman's credit, he accepted that further debate, and the Attorney-General had to come and speak to the Committee. Then he went on to say:

before the Committee votes on that amendment."—[Official Report, 22 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 685.]
In my opinion, that was a clear statement that there would be a vote on the amendment. It was not a decision; it was a statement at the time. The Chairman then changed his mind. He was entitled to change his mind and decide in the way that he did, but to give a strong indication to the Committee that he was prepared to call a vote and then to change his mind means that we are entitled to scrutinise and consider carefully whether there were any reasons for that change of mind, bearing in mind, as has been said, that the amendment had been selected for debate, was in order and was not a wrecking amendment. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford, thought that it was, but he was wrong. The Attorney-General made it clear that it was not a wrecking amendment. It was tabled not by the cavaliers on the Back Benches but by the roundheads on the Opposition Front Bench. It is a sensible and respectable amendment.
When it appeared to us, therefore, that the Chairman of Ways and Means had changed his mind, we were, and are, entitled to scrutinise why he did so. The Chairman of Ways and Means, being a very brave, nice and, perhaps, foolish man, did not give reasons, but he came close to giving reasons. No doubt that was a dangerous thing to do, because barrack-room lawyers on the Back Benches could then pore over the reasons, or non-reasons, that had been given.
Then the Chairman quite properly indicated—I applaud him for it, because he had changed his mind—at column 39 on 19 April that he had to consider, in allowing a vote, the clarity of the amendment, its impact on the Bill and the fact that, if brought into effect, it had to be workable and understandable. Without having subjected the amendment to that amount of textual criticism, I had always thought that amendment No. 27 was pretty clear. The Minister of State got it all wrong, but if he was wrong he was clearly wrong, as was said of a judge in the Court of Appeal some time ago.
The Attorney-General did not think much of amendment No. 27, for it did not make any difference to anybody, but it was perfectly clear to him. I have read again the Attorney-General's speech. Nowhere did he say that amendment No. 27 was not clear. The Foreign Secretary made a statement before the Attorney-General spoke. He did not say, either, that amendment No. 27 was not clear. With the greatest respect, therefore, there is nothing wrong, so far as I can see, with the clarity of amendment No. 27.
Is amendment No. 27 workable and understandable? The Government seemed to think that it was workable and understandable. Many of us have been Ministers and have latched on to little nods from parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants, indicating that we should resist certain amendments because they are badly drafted, unclear and unworkable. There was no such indication from the Government about amendment No. 27. The promoters of the Bill, the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General, never told us, as far as I can tell—I leave aside the Minister of State who says lots of things—that amendment No. 27 is unworkable, cannot be understood and will do something terrible to the Bill.
I cannot understand the reasons or the indications given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. They do not convince me. They may convince others. I make no


criticism of the honesty or integrity of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but looking at it as a statement, that is my feeling about it.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, or implied, if every future vote has to be taken on an amendment that is workable and clear, there will be far fewer votes in Committees. There will also be far fewer votes on Government amendments. I remember Government amendments, inserted in Committee into groups of amendments and voted upon, that were not particularly clear or workable or understandable. There lies the rub. It is a very brave Chairman of any Committee who, on a Bill promoted by the Government, who have a panoply of assistance from parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants, says, "This amendment is not clear and is not workable; therefore I will not call it." That is why I am not convinced by the reasons or indications that have been given to us.
I hope, Madam Speaker, that it may be possible, somehow, to have a vote on amendment No. 27, or on one similar to it. Many people outside the House will find it strange if we are unable to do so. Therefore, I hope that a way of doing so can be found. After all, a vote takes only 15 minutes.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. for calling me to speak in the debate. My intervention will be brief so that other hon. Members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
I listened with increased misgivings to what was said about the motion. However much the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) tries to give the impression, as he does with great skill, that what he has put forward is reasonable, restrained and far from being a fully fledged censure motion, one listens I o such points with mounting anxiety. As the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), rightly said, the implications of the motion are sinister for the future of the House and the conduct of its business. The implications of the motion are outrageous, even though it is cleverly couched in restrained and slightly reticent language.
I am old-fashioned enough to believe in the procedures of the House—so much so as to say that I do not believe that the reasons given by the Chair for selecting or not selecting amendments should be questioned in any way. That may sound excessively docile, but it is the only way in which the House can proceed in a practical way, particularly on major legislation that is taken on the Floor of the House, when there is a highly charged atmosphere and when people are looking for the slightest reason to be suspicious, with barrack-room lawyers looking not just for television interview reasons but for the slightest reason to suspect conspiracy or collusion between the Treasury Bench, the Chair, and so on.
I have detected no evidence of that in any way whatsoever throughout the 19 or 20 days of the prolonged Committee stage on the Floor of the House. One has to compare these proceedings with the much more fundamental and profound Bill on entry into the Community and the treaties—the treaty of Rome and treaty of accession—that we enacted in 1972 and 1973, when I think I am right in saying that fewer days were spent considering the measure in a Committee of the whole

House. That was a much more epoch-making step for this country to take, at the request of the then Government, than this legislation, although I welcome it, and the treaty, for all the reasons that have been put forward in our debates.
There has been a huge amount of debate on the Bill by a minority of Members. I reckon that between 85 and 90 hon. Members in all parts of the House are rigorously against the provisions of the Bill, in its final enactment, and the treaty behind it. When one compares that with the overwhelming majority of hon. Members who want the Bill to be enacted and also want the treaty, the amount of time devoted to debate has been more than reasonable. It is outrageous to suggest that the Chair has given erroneous reasons, or has done the wrong thing by the House of Commons in respect of amendment No. 27, or has, in general, oppressed the House. But that is the meaning of the motion. That is why it is unacceptable and should be crushingly defeated today.

Mr. Knapman: I am sorry that my hon. Friend believes that the motion has sinister implications. It would be interesting to know what they are. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to suggest that the outcome of tonight's vote will in any way reflect upon the need, or otherwise, for a vote on amendment No. 27.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend's intervention is totally astonishing. If we assume that the motion of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is carried, is it not right to reflect on the implications of the collapse in the credibility of the business of the House in general, not just in respect of this piece of legislation? The reasons for the silly suspicions of a conspiracy are self-evident. I need not go into them. Instead, I shall refer to the assertions that, in my estimation, were wrongly made about a Scottish television interview.
I did not see the interview, but the assertions relate to an answer given to television viewers by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Subject to an examination of the text of his answer, it seems to me incredible that the Chairman of Ways and Means would say on television that he never gives reasons and that, despite the fact that he was giving a television interview, it was none of the interviewer's business and that he would not answer the question. Answers in a television interview are, surely, totally different and, in any case, discursive, wide-ranging, colloquial and different from literal answers that are given in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
The idea that that is the same as giving reasons for selecting or not selecting an amendment for debate or vote is completely spurious, and I am surprised that people are even suggesting it.

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes: I may give way, but not for the moment.
The Leader of the House presented his argument briefly but with great skill. He is known to be not only a very good Leader of the House but a very fair-minded person who always makes his points in a calm, balanced and dispassionate way. I was glad that on this occasion he had a note of justified indignation in his voice when he rejected the motion and asked for it to be defeated in the appropriate manner. The majority of hon. Members are extremely annoyed and fed up about the fact that the motion has even been presented.
Although a majority have spoken against the motion, the anti-Europe and, for the purposes of this debate, the anti-Chair speakers—I use that description deliberately although they deny it—have repeated exactly the points of order made for more than an hour at the beginning of this week. Their arguments were a complete rerun, and nothing new has been added. There has been no justification for the motion. Even the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has fallen asleep—he is either bored with my words or with the text of his own motion. It is essential for the House to reject the motion decisively with a crushing defeat.
I am not defending a personality, although I agree with the repeated assertions, which have also been made by the critics, that the present Chairman of Ways and Means has done an outstanding job throughout the Committee stage. The reason I am genuinely indignant about the motion —as are other hon. Members—is that I am worried about paralysing the authority of the Chair in the future. From now on, there would be perpetual questioning of the Chair's motives—

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman keeps asserting that the Chair's decisions are always universally accepted. However, on a controversial issue in 1976, for example, the Speaker—not the Chair—made a decision against the hybridity of a Bill. He said that that was his final ruling and that, if hon. Members disagreed with it, they should table the usual motion—a motion of no confidence. The Conservative Opposition at the time did not wrap their cloaks around them and go home but persuaded the Speaker to change his decision because they did not agree with it. Were they wrong to do so?

Mr. Dykes: I did not mean that one should automatically reject the remote possibility of such an event arising in the House on rare occasions. That would be manifestly absurd. What I object to is the fact that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield did not table the motion as a motion of censure or of no confidence but tried to tone it down to make it more acceptable. That is the danger of the text.
I hope that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman is listening. I noticed that the shadow Leader of the House carefully did not respond—I do not think that she could at that stage—to the question asked by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats who is now a foreign affairs spokesman. The question was about the comparison between new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27 which, as has rightly been said, we have already passed by in Committee, subject to any re-presentation on Report. I hope that the question will be answered because it is important.
I am not assuming the construction of any reasons why the Chair should have selected an amendment or new clause for a vote. In my opinion, no reasons need to be given. I accept the Chair's decision. Many of the Chair's selections have been very much against the Government's interest and there have, quite rightly, been no complaints about that.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) as he is accusing other people of not having listened. My right hon. Friend spelt out the position in some detail. Amendment No. 27 and new

clauses 74 and 75 may have the same ultimate objective —to put pressure on the Government to accept the social chapter—but they do so in two entirely different ways. From the beginning, we have never accepted that they were alternatives. They have separate functions, which is why amendment No. 27 was pressed and why subsequent amendments were tabled, officially and by Back Benchers, to find a way to achieve the basic objective. My right hon. Friend made that point and we stand by it.

Mr. Dykes: In that case, it is funny that the shadow Leader of the House did not answer the question in that way. I think that there is a disagreement among members of the Labour Front Bench and among Labour Members. Be that as it may, we are getting back to the idea that the Chair should, through the motion and outrageous pressure from a minority of hon. Members, apparently be coerced to give reasons for the selection or otherwise of amendments, either for debate or vote. I reject that idea out of hand, except perhaps once every few decades in 1 per cent. of parliamentary opportunities and in a truly outrageous case.
The Chair's decision was a routine and justified decision, although I concede that amendment No. 27 is very important. The motion is disgraceful, and the quicker it is unequivocally defeated, the better.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Like all members of the Opposition, I am keen to get the social chapter included in the treaty. I hope that it will be possible on Report, because many of my constituents and people in Scotland generally have very low-paid jobs and need the protection of legislation, whether it comes from the House or from Europe. However, I support the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am reminded of a discussion that took place last night in the Tea Room. A young colleague summed up the issue very well by saying that one cannot have a football match without a referee, which is what the motion is trying to do.
For seven years, I have been a member of the Chairmen's Panel, and have throughly enjoyed it. I have learnt a great deal about the procedure of Committees and the House, and about amendments. Above all, I have learnt that one cannot please everyone. It is very difficult to do so, and it is natural that, when the Chairman decides in favour of one side, the other side is displeased. I do not think that any Chairman, including the Chairman of Ways and Means, would do anything to harm the integrity of the position that he or she holds. The strength of the House of Commons is that those who chair our Committees are constituency Members of Parliament. When they listen to the arguments made by hon. Members, they can easily put themselves in their position. They know what it is to be in a minority, trying to appeal to the Chair.
I recall a humorous situation that occurred in the Scottish Grand Committee. I was in the impossible position of trying to call as many Back Benchers as I could, including those from the minority parties. Inevitably, some hon. Members were squeezed out. One hon. Member spoke to me during one sitting, and the language he used would have made a navvy blush—it certainly made me blush. He gave me a great deal of abuse. I told him that the reason he was not called was that I had to call the Scottish National party, but I still got the abuse. Six months later,


that Labour Member was in the SNP and was shouting about the SNP not getting enough time on the Floor of the House. One cannot win.
On another occasion, the Clerk informed me that I could allow the Committee to sit 10 minutes beyond 1 pm to dispose of the business. I thought that everyone would be delighted about that, but a member of the Committee told me that he was not pleased because it meant that he would be late for his luncheon engagement, so he intended to report me to the Speaker.
I was in the House last Thursday and heard the discussion. I was aware of the high feelings. You will have noticed, Madam Speaker, that for many years I have chosen to sit here below the Gangway, and I enjoy the banter of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who sits nearby. I admire his sharp wit and the way that he gives Ministers and Conservatives in general a hard time—he gives the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons an even harder time. He is at his best in such situations, but he is certainly not at his best when he starts making personal attacks. I dissociate myself from terms such as "stitch-up" and "deals with the Government". I do not think that such remarks are helpful.
If we want people to accept positions of responsibility, by all means we can criticise them, so long as it is fair criticism, but personal attacks do not help. I was brought up in the trade union and labour movement, and because of the disadvantaged situation from which I came, I acquired most of my education from attending trade union and Labour party meetings. I would not have had that education, and l would have not been capable of being a Member of Parliament, had it not been for strong chairmanship. One thing that I learned early was that, when things go against someone, he should fight his corner and keep fighting, but the last thing he should do is blame the chairman.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the occasion on which the Speaker's ruling on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was—disgracefully, I believe —overruled by the Government. The manner in which the decision had been arrived at was significant. I was involved to some extent, because I was then the legal adviser to the ship repairers, so I was well acquainted with what was going on. The decision was disgraceful, and there was no basis whatever on which anyone could derive any satisfaction from ignoring a ruling of the Speaker or, indeed, of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I have not put my name to the motion, but that does not mean that I have not been seriously concerned about the difficulties that have arisen over amendment No. 27, primarily because, as I said about the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the object of the procedure is more important than all the arcane technicalities that prevail at the end of the day. Underneath all the precedents, we are really discussing a simple question: should the House of Commons be able to put to the vote a matter of vital interest to the people outside, whether in terms of the social chapter or of taxation and the agreement? The real problem is that the people outside

simply will not be able to understand why, in simple language, after all the debate that has taken place, we cannot have a vote on amendment No. 27.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Surely the argument is not about whether the people outside understand why we do or do not have a vote. The people outside frequently do not understand our complex procedures. The object of the debate is to determine whether the Chairman of Ways and Means has authority over the Chamber. That is the question today. We cannot have a form of mob rule. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, it is difficult enough being a Member of Parliament. We must make our own judgments, and occupants of the Chair must make theirs. They should not be a football to be kicked about on the whim of other hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).

Mr. Cash: I do not believe that I have put forward any views on the subject on the basis of a whim. The problem is that the issue has become Byzantine because, although we are told that no reasons are given, unless we subscribe to the notion of the hypocrisy of democracy, we know perfectly well that reasons have been given. In the light of the television transcript that we have seen and of statements that have been recorded in Hansard, it is perfectly ludicrous to say that no reasons have been given.
We have been clearly told that one of the problems involved with the selection of the amendment is that apparently it would wreck the Bill, and we must have regard to the effect that it would have on the Bill. That was said in so many words in the television programme. I see that the Chairman of Ways and Means is shaking his head, so I shall read out the transcript, because we must have a clear understanding. In reply to an interviewer's question the transcript records that he said:
Well you have to go back to the fact that there was a significant 2nd reading vote for the Bill therefore the House has already said, as it moved into Committee, that it wanted the Bill to go through and that it would accept amendments on the workings of the Bill, like the one we have got on the Committee of the Regions where they change the basis of who shall be appointed, but you cannot wreck the Bill but you can put in these sort of caveats and in a sense this one is a caveat and a very strong moral one actually, because what it really says is that yes the Bill can go through but the House will have to have a vote after the Royal Assent on whether or not it wants the Social Chapter in there.
Earlier, referring to another amendment, which must have been new clause 75, the Chairman said:
to put down an amendment which is more workable than 27 and that is what has actually come out.
I am now at a slight disadvantage, because I see that the Chairman of Ways and Means, in a sedentary position, is shaking his head. I should be more than happy to withdraw my reference if what I have is not a verbatim transcript, but I can use only the evidence before me. I am simply making a point that is reiterated in column 39 of the Official Report of 19 April—perhaps we are entitled to put more emphasis on that than on a television interview. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is now nodding his head. In respect of amendment No. 27 he said:
In arriving at such a decision … any occupant of the Chair must have regard to a number of factors, including the Committee's debates, the clarity of effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill which, if brought into effect, must


be both workable and understandable. In the very nature of this case, there can be no exact precedent."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred to the MacAndrew case, but the Chairman of Ways and Means has made it clear that he had to form his judgment on the issue before him. The problem that I have with the reasons that he has given leads me to be concerned about the basis upon which that decision was made. It is conceded that there is no precedent, because such matters must be regarded as being taken separately on each occasion.
That being said, let us consider the questions that are put to us. In my view, they merely compound the Byzantine nature of the position that we are already in, because if the reasons that we have been given were applied on future occasions they would cause an unbelievable amount of difficulty. Who is to decide on the "clarity of effect" of an amendment? It is sometimes exceedingly difficult, without waiting for the matter to be referred to the courts, to know what decision will be taken on the meaning to be drawn from a specific form of words. In the European dimension, considering the methods of interpretation now applied in the European courts as compared with those used in our own courts, that becomes even more difficult. The considerations are to be:
the clarity of effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill".
The reference to the amendment's impact on the Bill is similar to the reference in the television transcript to which I have just referred. I am very concerned about the impact on the Bill. Although no reasons have been given for the reference, I believe that it refers to Second Reading, which was mentioned in the television transcript, and the impact that amendment No. 27, if passed, would have on the process of the treaty and the Bill. It has been decided effectively to remove amendment No. 27 from the amendment paper.
The Bill received a majority of 244 on Second Reading. However, Second Reading occurred a very long time ago, on 2 May last year. Since then, there has been a referendum in Denmark. Therefore, we are not dealing with the same agreement or treaty that was signed on 7 February because the Danish people are—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant, but I am now insisting that the hon. Gentleman should speak to the motion before the House. The debate is limited to the exercise of the Chair's discretion on amendment No. 27. It is limited only to that and not to the Danish referendum or to what anyone else does in any other country. It is limited simply to the judgment and discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means: that is all.

Mr. Cash: Indeed, Madam Speaker, and I am happy to follow your ruling. I am referring to the impact on the Bill and that was the reason given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. That causes me concern because the principle of the Bill on Second Reading has been breached by our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism. If we are not to have a Division on amendment No. 27 and the reason for that—although it is not entirely disclosed—is the effect that it would have in respect of Second Reading, that is not a justifiable reason for there to be no Division on the amendment.
According to the motion and to the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the amendment must be workable and understandable. That point has already been discussed. By providing new criteria, there will be enormous difficulties in respect of future rulings.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend who, unlike me, is not one of the minority of hon. Members to whom the procedures of the House are sometimes arcane. I have examined pages 491 to 493 of "Erskine May". It is clear that the intelligibility and the workability of an amendment are criteria which Chairmen of Committees have taken into account for many years. Is my hon. Friend saying that they are new criteria?

Mr. Cash: Those of us who have examined the same provisions are perfectly aware that it may be a question of grammar or logic. However, there is no question about the meaning to be attached to amendment No. 27. It is crystal clear. The problem is about workability and understan-dability in relation to the Bill which received its Second Reading by a substantial majority and in respect of which the landscape has changed fundamentally since then.
The Chairman of Ways and Means told me that it was not the length of debate in question, but the content that was the issue. However, I want to query another issue that has not been mentioned so far in this debate. If we were to be confined in this way, it would be impossible for anyone to know whether the content of an amendment would lead to its being ruled out of order in respect of a Division.
That raises yet another problem: what is the content of a debate? Some debates are immensely interesting and some are exceedingly difficult to understand. The reality is that we cannot become locked into an argument about content as opposed to length because that would confuse matters.
It is equally clear that, in respect of amendments tabled on Report, "Erskine May" states:
In particular, amendments are sometimes tabled to reverse Government defeats in Committee and these are always selected.
That means that Governments always have the right to obtain a reversal on Report. Presumably that will apply to the vote on the Committee of the Regions. "Erskine May" continues:
In general, amendments which were debated at length"—
it does not say anything about content—
in Committee, and brought to a vote, are not selected by the Speaker for further debate on Report. Amendments only briefly debated and which were then withdrawn, may well be selected if time permits.
However, the Chairman is on record as having made it perfectly clear that one of the prime reasons why amendment No. 27 was not selected for a Division was that the length of the debate and presumably also its content were not substantial. I believe that that is extraordinary having regard to the column inches devoted to that amendment. If we move to another stage, I find it difficult to understand how such matters might not be considered.
We must also bear in mind that the House of Lords would not be able to consider the tax implications of amendment No. 27. Furthermore, with respect to the whole issue of tax which has been thoroughly debated this


afternoon, we must consider whether we have a right to determine the issues that arise under the agreement vested in amendment No. 27.
When considering the remarks of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and the Chairman of the Ways and Means last week, I found it strange and opaque to discover that a new kind of doctrine appeared to be emerging—that the Government deserve protection if they find themselves in a minority. Some of the proceedings last week, in respect of the comments of the Minister of State and the Chairman of Ways and Means, would repay detailed consideration.

Mr. Whitney: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, will he clarify a problem that is puzzling some of us? Some of us have noticed that three of our hon. Friends have signed the motion that we are debating. However, the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is missing from that list. Many of us would be interested to know why his name does not appear, given the strength of feeling that, at his usual generous length, he is now offering to the House in respect of the views and conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Can my hon. Friend tell us which way he will be voting in the Lobby, as that would also be of interest to hon. Members?

Mr. Cash: I do not have the slightest intention of disclosing in advance how [will vote. However, I do not believe that the motion is sensible, for the simple reason that I do not believe that we need to hype the issue into a censure motion. Substantive questions arise and I am addressing them.
We would be neglecting the responsibility vested in us, given the fact that I raised points of order on the matter in the past, if we did not follow through the logic of what has been happening. It is not in the interests of the House, for the reasons that I have given, for us to be taken down this route by the judgment on amendment No. 27. That is the point that I am making.
With respect to the implications of declining a Division on amendment No. 27, "Erskine May" states:
The Speaker's guiding principle is to avoid debate on the Floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in Committee and where exactly the same decision may be expected on the amendment or amendments concerned.
If there is no vote, exactly the same decision will be taken because no opportunity for a vote will have been offered. There is ample opportunity for this matter to be reconsidered without getting into a tremendous hysterical turmoil about whether the Chairman made the right decision. I am happy to accept that he made the best judgment at the time. The question must be: was it the right judgment and has it led us into an impossible Byzantine position which can be resolved on Report?
Another reference to the Speaker's criteria, which was set out by Speaker King, is that all Government amendments are usually selected. Therefore, given the importance of this matter to the Government, and the fact that amendment No. 27 is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, that presents an extremely good reason for selecting it subsequently.

Mr. Rooker: Surely the hon. Gentleman is overstating the case. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill are selected virtually automatically. If this were a private Member's Bill, the amendments of

the hon. Member who introduced it would be selected. Government amendments have been selected only because the Minister is in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Cash: That is a fair point: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have simply set out what "Erskine May" says:
The Speakers usually select … important issues fully debated in committee, but still containing vital matters worthy of a 'last look'.
That seems to be the basis on which there will be ample opportunity, after this debate is finished, to re-examine amendment No. 27, which is of enormous importance politically and constitutionally. Undoubtedly, it is an important and vital issue. I believe that it is worthy of a last look.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope that I do not have to travel or take anyone down these Byzantine ways. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House talking about the matter, and I want to be as clear as I possibly can. I shall kick off by saying that we do not need any lectures from Euro-fanatics such as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about ensuring that democracy in the House of Commons remains. He has been at the forefront of ensuring that power has been taken away from the House of Commons to Brussels, Bonn, Strasbourg, Luxembourg and anywhere else on the continent. We do not need any lectures from Euro-fanatics about undermining democracy in the House.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the treaty. As he knows, the treaty as debated provides for a reinforcement of the powers and involvement of all national parliaments, including the House of Commons.

Mr. Skinner: There has been a hidden agenda in the Common Market since it began on 28 October 1971. Before the hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament, he was campaigning outside for the European Movement. He is telling hon. Members in the House, "We are not going to do anything important today. We will pass a little treaty, but don't worry—nothing will happen". There has been a hidden agenda.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be moved away from the motion on the Order Paper by such interventions.

Mr. Skinner: It is important to remember that we are talking against the background of a shift in power from this place to the Common Market. The whole argument, like the previous one in which Grant-Ferris was involved, was about the Common Market. It has bedevilled the House of Commons almost all the time that I have been a Member of Parliament.
Some of the greatest problems which have arisen in the House of Commons have done so because we are a member of the Common Market. The split in the Labour party, the split in the Tory party and all the rest of it are attributable to the fact that many hon. Members in the House and many millions of people outside believe that we made a big mistake.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: No—we must allow other hon. Members to speak.[Interruption.] Madam Speaker is nodding her head, so we are together; we have established a partnership.
As for all that talk about not undermining the Chair, let us have none of that nonsense. A few years ago, when Speaker Weatherill was in the Chair, there were briefings from the Government to get rid of him. All the newspapers got the stories about how the Prime Minister wanted to get the Speaker out of the Chair. We know the stories. Conservative Members were briefing all the time.
Let us not be lily-livered about the fact that the Chairman of Ways and Means is under the microscope because Mrs. Thatcher and the rest of them were quite happy to tell Weatherill, indirectly through the newspapers, "Get on your bike. We have had enough of you. We want somebody else in your place". Weatherill was smart enough to talk to Members of Parliament that he thought might help him to stay in his job. That is the background.
Let us not have any more talk from those pompous people that somehow or other we cannot discuss the Chair in the House of Commons. It happens in every other organisation that I know about. I had not been chair of the Labour party for five minutes before nearly every right-wing member of the national executive committee tried to move me out at the first meeting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) stood by me, but he had a job to get a seconder.
All the hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench, who were members of the NEC, were not bothered about undermining the authority of the chair. I was right. I had only quoted the standing orders, but that was enough for them. They did not like the standing orders—they are all standing orders—and they were prepared to kick me out of the chair at the first meeting. I stood my ground. I did not go whining to people and saying, "Isn't it terrible? How can I manage?" I fought on.
I do not know what this place is coming to when hon. Members cannot make comments about the Chair. The Chairman made a series of mistakes—not just one. He got caught up in the 20th century and television. Some people said that television would not alter this place. It has altered this place, and the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not say that in a machiavellian way. The Chairman went on television. Like all people who go on television, he was asked awkward questions and responded.
It is time that we stopped this nonsense of saying that the Chair cannot explain. Is it time to stop it? We are approaching the 21st century, and a leading Member in the House of Commons is not able to tell the assembled Members, "The reason why I am not selecting your amendment or putting it to the vote is the following." Let us grow up. Let us start to explain so that people fully understand. What is it about the mythology of this place that somehow or other we wrap the Chair in a cocoon? What is it all for? It is high time that we understood more clearly. The Chair was wrong on 22 February when he said that there would be a vote. Surely we should be allowed to make the point in the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and I were brought up in different ways, although we agree on many things. He is a sensitive old soul. Today, he said that the motion was not an attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means. I think it is. I have never thought any different —I had to tell my right hon. Friend that last night. The

motion is an attack on the Chairman. It is not a personal attack in the sense that hon. Members do not like him: it is an attack on his judgment. Some of us feel that he made the wrong one.
What is wrong with being able to say that from time to time? That is against a background of a Tory party which, only a few years ago, told the Prime Minister, "Get on your bike". They chucked her out like a dog in the night.
Now, those same sensitive souls, such as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was probably one of those who chucked her out, and the hon. Member for Harrow, East—they were part and parcel of that great vote—try to tell us that we cannot discuss these other matters in here. They stand here talking about the pomp and ceremony of this place. The previous Prime Minister got thrown out without a majority vote. There was no majority to kick her out, but she went, just as many others have done.
I will tell the House why I believe that some of the people here are not keen on passing a motion against the Chairman of Ways and Means. They are afraid that he might resign. He is an honourable man. I am sure that he would resign. I put another proposition to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I think that he should not resign. He should come back and say, "We should have a vote on something similar to amendment No. 27." I would back him in the Chair if he said that.
So what is it? Do people not want him to resign because the Government have at least 15 members of the Cabinet who ought to resign? It might catch on. They might say, "We cannot afford to let him go, because people might think we should go. He has been an honourable man." That is the last thing that this Tory Government want.
There is a hidden agenda. I do not have any hang-ups about it. It was a stitch-up from beginning to end. I do not believe that, in this modern age, especially with television, it is possible for the Chair not to know what the Government are up to. I find that incredible. When a debate is closed after three, four or five hours in the middle of the night, do people expect me to believe that there has not been a discussion between the Chair and the Chief Whip or one of his people? I do not believe it. Of course it is done, and I expect it to be done. This place could not be run without that sort of collaboration.
I am also in favour of the motion because I have seen power removed from Back Benchers in the 23 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. The motion is not merely about Mr. Morris. When my hon. Friends go into the Lobby, as assuredly we will, they should realise that, in the past 23 years, this Government and Governments before them have taken power to themselves over and over again.
There was a time when the Government had to close the summer and spring Adjournment motion debates. Now the debates last only three hours. We used to fight on the Consolidated Fund Bill right through the night and the following morning and cock up the Government's business for the next day. Now all that has gone. There was a time when there was no such thing as 10-minute limits on speeches for Back-Bench Members after 6 and 7 o'clock. Now there is a limit, but the Front-Bench spokesmen still have their 30, 40 or 50 minutes.
We never used to have guillotines such as we have now. When I came into the House, it was extremely rare for a guillotine to be put on. The practice has grown over the years. That is all part of the same business.
The power that the Government have today is enormous by comparison with what Governments had previously. On this occasion, Back Benchers want to assert some authority, but in the end it is about Speakers and their role in relation to Back Benchers. Speakers all claim to be on the side of the Back Benchers. They say that they will preserve and safeguard the interests of Back Benchers. The truth is that that is not always the case.
Speaker Lenthall said, "I have neither eye to see," and the rest of it. On this occasion, my view—for what it is worth—is that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not act like Speaker Lenthall. He acted on behalf of the Government. The result was that we lost a great opportunity to score a great wounding victory against the Government on amendment No. 27. That is what really happened. It sticks in my craw. No one will convince me otherwise. I believe that, instead of standing his ground, Morris surrendered not only to the Government but, sadly, whether he knows it or not, to Brussels. That is why I shall vote for the motion.

Mr. lain Duncan-Smith: It is a case of "Follow that", but I shall endeavour to do so in a short speech, to allow others to speak.
I have listened to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having heard many of the speeches made throughout the Committee stage, I had a sense of deja vu, but at least it was a comfortable one. I listened particularly carefully to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Clearly, his knowledge of procedure is far ahead of anything that I could possibly rival. I do not intend to be caught up in that argument.
I am against the Maastricht process and treaty. That is fairly clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have made my position pretty clear. I was and am disappointed that amendment No. 27 was not put to a vote. However, I believe that the important thing is to make my views clear on the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has behaved wholly honourably and in a fair manner throughout the Committee stage.
Therefore, one must ask whether the motion will' be perceived in the way that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield explained it. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and others, especially the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), believe that it is not absolutely a motion of censure. It is not written exactly in those terms. But the problem is that the motion will be perceived as a motion of censure on someone who has behaved honourably in reaching his decision.
As I said, I am disappointed that the Chairman's decision precluded a vote on amendment No. 27. I hope that, on Report, you will review that decision, Maclam Speaker, and for your own reasons come to a decision that may well allow the House to vote on amendment No. 27.
The problem with the motion is that the mechanism —as far as I can tell from the procedure of the House—is such that there is no way in which the outcome of the vote tonight, whatever it may be, will allow a vote on amendment No. 27. Therefore, it is bound to be perceived wholly as a motion of censure. That is why I am opposed to it.
Therefore, I hope and wish that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who put their names to it will carefully examine

the motion again and, before we reach the stage at which it is necessary to proceed to a vote, withdraw it. It would be in the best interests of the House not to have the motion pressed to a vote, to proceed to the remaining stages of the Committee proceedings and the Report stage and, hopefully, to a vote on amendment No. 27.

Mr. Peter Shore: I make it clear from the start, speaking as the second signatory to the motion, that no personal attack is intended. I do not agree with the attack in the forthright speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the conduct and motivation of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I take the view that Sir Elwyn Jones, as he then was, took when he moved a similar motion against the Chair in 1972. He said:
Least of all is it an imputation … against his good faith and integrity."—[Official Report, 1 March 1972; Vol. 832, c. 434.]
There is no such intention.
I respect the Chair, as I believe other Members do. I have considerable regard for those who have the difficult task of occupying it and conducting the business of the House. However, while I have respect for the Chair and its occupants, I do not believe that they are infallible. From time to time, we perform a service to the House and the country when we subject certain rulings to serious debate and scrutiny.
That is precisely what we are doing. Through our actions this afternoon, we have done a considerable service to the House. I refuse to be buried by a load of humbug —the suggestion that Members never have the right to question the Chair about any matter. The people making that accusation know jolly well that it is over 20 years since, on another matter of vast importance, such a motion was moved. Therefore, let us dispense with that argument straight away.
Happily, I do not have to go over the background, as that has inevitably been done by previous speakers. I shall turn to what is almost the crux of the matter. Amendment No. 27 was moved from the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who moved the group of amendments, immediately made it plain that, although the lead amendment was amendment No. 7, he was not interested in that one, would not be talking to it and would withdraw it. He emphasised that the debate was about amendment No. 27. It was not only my right hon. Friend who asserted that: the rest of the Committee concurred, because it knew that amendment No. 27 was the most important amendment in the group. The Committee then debated it as such.
We know that the Government were horrified at the prospect of the amendment. The Minister of State said that it would wreck the Bill and the treaty as soon as he heard of my right hon. Friend's intention to insist on pressing the amendment to a vote. We then had the extraordinary incident of the Foreign Secretary coming to the House to repudiate on the advice of the Law Officers what the Minister of State had said. He said that the Minister had got it wrong and amendment No. 27 would have no effect on the treaty's ratification and the conclusion of the Bill. We took that advice with the scepticism that such contradictory advice deserved.
The Chairman of the Committee was not particularly impressed, either. In a statement on 22 February, he said


that he was minded to take another debate on the important matter before he allowed a vote on amendment No. 27. The clear implication was that we should vote on the matter, and the Chairman had not been swayed by what the Attorney-General or the Minister of State had said in earlier debates.
We now come to the heart of the matter. What happened? Why did the Chairman of Ways and Means change his mind after serious consideration? He first announced that he would select, not amendment No. 27, but different amendments, particularly new clause 75. He told us that first, I think, on 30 March. He then met a number of anxious hon. Members who thought that that would be a great mistake, and he reconsidered the issue and came forward on Thursday 15 April with further confirmation of his intention to select new clause 75 and not allow a vote on amendment No. 27.
The Chairman's restatement led to considerable concern in the Committee and, after a long period of questions to the Chairman of Ways and Means, there was a debate in which the matters were thrashed out yet again. We came to the last stage of this when, on Monday, the Chairman reaffirmed his decision not to call amendment No. 27.
As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, the Chairman has helped the Committee by making statements on the reasons for his decisions. He opened proceedings on 19 April with a statement to the Committee about
the context in which my decision not to allow a separate Division to amendment No. 27 was taken.
He said that the context included a number of factors such as the extent of the Committee's debate
the clarity and effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill."—[Official Report, 19 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 39.]
The Chairman gave an interview, not just on Scottish television, but on BBC2 on Tuesday 13 April, the full text of which a number of hon. Members have seen, and a copy of which I have with me today. The Chairman was specifically asked about his selection of new clause 75 in place of amendment No. 27—indeed, why else would he appear on the programme? The Chairman was reported to have said:
You have got to go back to the fact that there was a significant Second Reading for the Bill. Therefore, the House had already said, as it moved into Committee, that it wanted the Bill to go through, that it would accept amendments on the workings of the Bill, like the one we have got on the Committee of the Regions, but you cannot wreck the Bill.
Clearly, the Chairman considered that amendment No. 27 is or was a wrecking amendment. He made clear his views on new clause 75, the alternative choice, when he said:
What it really says"—
new clause 75—
is that, yes, the Bill can go through, but the House shall have to have a vote after the Royal Assent on whether or not it wants the social chapter.
There is a world of difference between amendments with such different effects. Despite what the Attorney-General said, amendment No. 27 would wreck the Bill and bring it to a halt. We know perfectly well that new clause 75, backed up by new clause 74, would have no such effect, and the Bill would receive Royal Assent.
The issue lies at the heart of the matter. It makes plain the enormous difference between the effects of amendment

No. 27 and new clauses 75 and 74. Not surprisingly, the Government have said that they would have no difficulty in accepting new clause 75. They have no difficulty with that new clause, because they know that it will not stop the Bill and ratification of the treaty. The new clause is sufficiently vague not to lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I refer my right hon. Friend to the words of new clause 74, which states that the Bill cannot come into force before there is a debate on the social chapter. Therefore, it follows that the Government could not ratify the treaty before that debate has taken place.

Mr. Shore: We shall see what the Government have to say and whether they would find any difficulty with it when we reach that stage. As we well know, as the vote on the social chapter is to be taken after Royal Assent, it will have an entirely different effect from a vote on amendment No. 27, which would prevent the Bill from receiving Royal Assent. There is a major difference between the two.
I do not understand why it is said that, because amendment No. 27 stops or wrecks the Bill, it cannot be voted on because the House has given the Bill a Second Reading. Surely, if it were considered a wrecking amendment, it should never have been called in the first place—indeed, it would not have been called in the first place. The Chairman allowed it to appear among the selected amendments because he did not consider it to be a wrecking amendment. If it was a wrecking amendment, it should have been disqualified from the start, but it was not.
Secondly, and even more puzzlingly, the Chair has already allowed a number of amendments—after they have been properly selected and debated—to be put to the vote. We had votes on amendment No. 79, which sought to remove the clause and the protocol relating to excessive deficits. It was selected, we debated it and then voted on it. No one could deny that the effect of my amendment No. 79 would be to wreck the Bill—it would have virtually torn the heart out of economic and monetary union.
The same was true, not only of my other amendment No. 81, which was similarly voted on and rejected, but of a number of other amendments which would have wrecked the Bill, and which were moved, debated and voted on. They would have prevented the treaty from being ratified.

Mr. George Robertson: Perhaps I can stop my right hon. Friend going down this route. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made it clear that we are arguing, certainly from the Front Bench, that the Chairman of Ways and Means has already said that amendment No. 27 has integrity and does not fail the test.
I know that my right hon. Friend does not have the pleasure and privilege of living in Scotland, but if he had, he would have seen BBC Scotland's admirable "Scottish Lobby" programme at 12 o'clock on Sunday, on which the Chairman of Ways and Means was interviewed again. He said that, had subsequent amendments not been tabled, he supposed that there might well have been a vote on amendment No. 27.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend's argument on the basis of the first interview does not stand, because the Chairman has told the wider world, certainly Scotland,


that amendment No. 27 has integrity. That is the argument that we shall be using on Report to convince you, Madam Speaker, that you should select it.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is confusing the House, and not for the first time. He is contradicting the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who spoke earlier and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, both of whom have made it plain that there is a world of difference between amendment No. 27 and new clauses 74 and 75, and that they will continue to plead, argue and persuade that there should be a vote on it.
If there is a vote on it, that will not please my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), as it will have the effect, at least for a time, of bringing the treaty and its procedures to a stop. That is a matter on which we fundamentally disagree. That brings me to my last point, which is why I think that this is such an important matter.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend is making an important point about whether or not the Chair can select, let alone put to the vote, a matter which he regards as a wrecking amendment. Surely the whole problem is the difference between wrecking the Bill, which I do not think my right hon. Friend's amendment would do, and wrecking the treaty, which might well happen if the Bill becomes an Act. We are in a double-decked situation.

Mr. Shore: It would have the effect of wrecking the treaty, and that is the important objective that I, personally, wish to achieve, without any doubt, concealment or apology.
I now come to the final significance of amendment No. 27. Uniquely, it combines two features. First, it is the only amendment moved by the Opposition and properly debated which has been denied a vote. Even people such as myself, now a humble Back Bencher, have had amendments debated and voted upon in the middle of the night. My amendments were far more damaging than anything that was moved by the Front Bench.
Secondly, it is the only amendment on which we and the Government know that they are likely to be defeated. It is the only amendment of serious substance, because there has been so much general tacit agreement among the three major parties and their leadership that the House will not be able to make such a challenge to the Bill and the treaty on any other issue. That unique combination makes amendment No. 27 essential to the good reputation of the House and its continued esteem among our fellow citizens.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced the Government's response to the debate in the way that he did. He implied that anyone who was concerned about this issue was critical of my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and I have the privilege of sharing parliamentary responsibility for Northampton. Before he was elevated to his present, highly responsible position, I thought that he was a mere mortal and a human being. Since he has taken on responsibility for the most difficult parliamentary procedure since I have been a Member of Parliament, he has behaved in a most superhuman way. I

am not given to ladling on the syrup. The Chairman of Ways and Means has performed magnificently and I am delighted and overwhelmed that a Member for Northampton has responsibility for this Bill dealing with such an important measure. But—[Interruption.] It is the old political trick of ascribing to people with whom one disagrees motives that they do not have. We are not critical of the Chairman of Ways and Means; we admire him and the way in which he has carried out his duties and responsibilities. He has been highly responsive, articulate and effective.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that if we want to say anything about the motion we are attacking the Chair. We are not. We are saying something about the motion because we want a vote on amendment No. 27.
As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said when he introduced the debate, where is the court of appeal? The Chairman of Ways and Means has made a decision and some of us disagree. We think that it is an important decision on an important issue. In this House of Commons, are we not able to express our concern and our desire to do something else?
My hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means has performed magnificently. At some stage in future we may have a Chairman of Ways and Means who does not do so, who is culpable and makes mistakes. Is my right hon. Friend saying that in those circumstances the House must roll on its back and enjoy it and do nothing about it? Is that what democracy is about? Is that what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wants the House to do —not to have a view or a voice on the most important issue that has come before this House, this Parliament and this people in the past 25 years?
I refer to page 405 of "Erskine May". The Chair is not required to give reasons and we all understand—[Interruption.] Most of us understand why. I respect the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I disagree with him on that point.
"Erskine May" states:
Selection is made by the Chair
and one of the things that is taken into account is the prevention of "repetition and overlapping". It may well be that repetition and overlapping were considered when the Chairman was looking at new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27. But they do not overlap; they are different in detail. Amendment No. 27 has financial implications; new clauses 74 and 75 are wholly different and the House knows that. They are different in detail and, by golly, they are different in their impact. The House should be able to vote on both.
The point has been made that we have to protect minorities. It is common ground that a majority in the House want a vote on amendment No. 27. If a minority wants a vote on an important issue, they should have one, but if a majority of the House wants it, should not the majority of the House have a vote on an important issue?
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) brought out the tired old cliche about the Second Reading of the Bill. The Second Reading was nearly a year ago. The world has changed and I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not changed in that long period of time. If a week is a long time in politics, a year is a generation.
Everyone would agree that the treaty of European union is a massive issue. It is irreversible. Once passed, powers will pass from this House to other institutions.


Rightly, our constituents are greatly concerned about that. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, amendment No. 27 carries with it massive implications. Our constituents feel that it could make a difference. On this great issue people's perceptions are vital. In this case, as we continue our debates, their perception is that the House is entitled to a vote on such a major issue. If we do not have one, orders will come from European institutions in years to come without the House having been able to vote—

Mr. Milligan: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I am coming to a conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah!"] What a chance to get my second wind.
The perception of our constituents is that the House must have a vote, if possible, on such an important issue.
"Erskine May" refers to the 1966–67 appendices to the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure by the then Speaker on the Report stage of public Bills. It states that the Report stage is not unimportant.
The Bill as it emerges from Committee is often a much modified Bill"—
this one has been modified—
the Opposition"—
I presume, in a wider sense—
may now have a new attitude to parts of it … The deliberations of the Committee, even those which have not resulted in amendments to the Bill, have often been of considerable effect on the thinking of both sides. This reveals itself at the Report stage.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who spoke of important issues, carefully debated in Committee, but still containing vital matters worthy of a last look. Hence they should be selected for debate on Report. I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will be able to look at this subject again then.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to speak quietly for a moment or two to the Leader of the House and to hark back to what he said at the beginning of his speech. He used the word—I do not think I misquote him —"unpalatable". According to him, what has happened is either palatable or unpalatable, depending on whether a Member is pro or anti-European. That was the gist of what he said.
A number of us feel rather differently. Wrongly, in the view of many of my colleagues, I have from time to time voted on closures and other matters with the Government. I am a Euro-fanatic, if that is the right word, but last Thursday, although I sat here as quiet as a church mouse, I felt increasingly uncomfortable when my hon. Friends were making their points of order. It seems very odd, even to those of us who hold passionately pro-European views, that a vote should be denied us on a matter, whether one likes it or not, of enormous substance. I ask the House's forgiveness if this is not an exact analogy, but it felt rather like being a forward in a football match who knows that he was yards offside but the goal was allowed. There seemed something not quite right about the decision.
I said nothing at the time, but I was greatly influenced by the comments I heard in my constituency over the weekend. I do not suggest for a moment that all our constituents understand the finer points of "Erskine May",

but somehow the fact had percolated through that the House of Commons was not acting quite properly—that there was something unfair going on. In schoolboy slang, there was a general feeling that there had been a bit of a swizz.
A deeper question was also being asked. It was voiced, too, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who received a great deal of agreement from the country, last Thursday. It was to the effect that we should ask what the House of Commons is for. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the same point extremely eloquently. Constituents ask what the House of Commons is for if it cannot make up its mind on the question of the social chapter. They ask whether we can think of a way of bringing the matter to a decision.

Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman says that amendment No. 27 covers an issue of enormous importance. Can he explain why new clauses 74 and 75 do not cover that same issue, and why what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has described as a ticking timebomb appears to have become a ticking mouse?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend must answer for himself on ticking timebombs. I am extraordinarily cautious about my use of language, but it is not arguable that there is no difference between new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27. If there is no difference, all we can say is that a great many serious Members of Parliament believe that there is one.
Perhaps all these are the troubles that arise when Ministers want to have Maastricht a la carte. Once they start chopping and changing, they cannot be surprised when they find themselves in such difficulties. The House should be in no doubt that a great many of our constituents understand a vast amount more than some hon. Members this afternoon have given them credit for. They have the gut feeling that there has not been fair play. That is why I hope that there will be some change of attitude towards this subject.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has touched on one of the fundamentals of our debate today. We are talking about the functions of the chairmanship of Standing Committees and of Committees of the whole House, and in particular we are discussing discretion.
Madam Speaker has been telling us that the debate is about the discretion of the Chair. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has let his views be known, allbeit rather loudly; the views expressed by his colleague, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), have been delivered with characteristic courtesy and patience throughout this difficult Committee stage.
It has not been denied even by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that if confidence in the Chair is to be sustained, and if our procedures are to inspire confidence in the country, there must be an opportunity for debates of this sort when an important matter about which there are strong feelings arises. I therefore reject the accusations by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who said a couple of days ago, as did the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that there was something improper about holding such a debate. I suggest that, because of the issues involved, this debate is quite proper.
The essence of parliamentary debate is the opportunity it affords to ventilate an issue. That is what we are doing now. It is what the Standing Orders allow for. We also, however, operate on the basis of a Question. When a motion is proposed, having been selected by the Chair, we have a debate. There is evidence today that the debate under discussion, in which amendment No. 27 was the main feature, exercised the House, and there were strong reasons why there should have been a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has pointed out that the public expect, as is their right, that if a matter of great importance is debated, it should be brought to a conclusion by a decision.
The Chair has a problem because of the link between the Bill and the treaty. In certain respects something that wrecks a Bill may not be selectable or, if it is, it may not be put to the vote. That is for the discretion of the Chair. We are concerned not with the Bill but with the treaty. We have to decide whether the House will provide the Government with sufficient power to ratify the treaty. Therefore, something which may be within the compass of the Bill, because it restricts what can be done, may wreck the treaty. That is a matter for the House and it is not a question on which the Chair should exercise discretion, as would happen in a Standing Committee. In Standing Committees we deal with domestic legislation, which is reversible, and which may be changed by a different Government.
Some people want the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to be irreversible in regard to citizenship of the United Kingdom, a matter of momentous importance. Therefore, democracy and the procedure of the House must be seen to work. It is the same with justice which must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The confidence of the population in our procedures must be maintained; we must demonstrate that our procedure is above board.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's views are held sincerely. When new clauses 74 and 75 came into play, the Chairman of Ways and Means had to make a choice. While we may not agree with the choice, nevertheless it was his choice. We can hardly blame him for making his choice, nor can the hon. Gentleman, given that new clauses 74 and 75 were tabled by members of his party.

Mr. Spearing: Let us go through it carefully. The Chairman had a choice. As matters developed, I suppose we can say that the range of that choice varied. I do not think that any of us would have liked to have been in that position. The point is that when the choice was made, it was exclusive and not inclusive. Something which was reckoned to be a strong possibility—I put it no higher—was excluded. People were disappointed. I will not use the word, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but some people, very distinguished people, reflected a view and said that they were cheated. If people feel like that because a discretionary choice involved exclusion rather than inclusion, we must question the use of that discretion.
I expect it has happened to other people too, but I was moved out of the Chair on one occasion, about 30 years ago. I hasten to add that it was not in respect of any function in the House. The feeling about it was strong and was of great personal concern to me at the time. The incident arose from a ruling which I made when in the

chair at a meeting of a voluntary organisation. There was no question of a motion of mild comment or even criticism, which would cover the motion before the House. I was moved out of the chair forthwith because my friends disagreed with a vital ruling which I had made. The matter was resolved, but when I spoke to them afterwards I began to see their point of view. I realised that they had every right to propose a motion to remove me from the chair.
I would not agree with it happening here perhaps more than once every 20 years. It should not be done without good reason. Having been Chairman of a Select Committee for nine years, I know the problems. There must be an opportunity for people to ventilate their concern. We are doing so now in a proper, democratic way. If we could not do so, the power of discretion which we put in the charge of any Chair could become wider and other Chairmen might hot know that at any time their decisions were under scrutiny. If decisions were not under scrutiny, the power of the Chair would not be exercised with proper caution. Indeed, after a time the power of the Chair would be diminished.
The Chair is a servant of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned Speaker Lenthall. The Chair is a servant of the corporate Committee or of the House, to do what the House wishes. The House wishes its procedures to be beyond reproach so that hon. Members who wish to vote on a motion, having debated it, may do so. Anything which stops that happening raises a question and will be viewed, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, as a bit of a swizz. That might be an understatement in respect of the possible consequences of amendment No. 27.
You have listened to most of the debate, Madam Speaker. Report stage is there for a purpose: the Speaker can take an overall view of all the circumstances and is not bound by some of the precedents which are properly adhered to by the Chair of Committees. Whatever we decide now, there will be a Report stage. A matter of major controversy was selected for debate, and was debated. I ask you, Madam Speaker, in your capacity as a servant of the House and, through that, as a servant of the people whom we represent and who expect us not only to debate but to reach a decision, to bear in mind in your judgment all the matters raised in the debate.

Mr. Timothy Wood (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided:  Ayes 337, Noes 86.

Division No. 242]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aspinwall, Jack


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Alton, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ancram, Michael
Bates, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Bayley, Hugh


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Beresford, Sir Paul






Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Garrett, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hawksley, Warren


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Horam, John


Dafis, Cynog
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dover, Den
Ingram, Adam


Duncan, Alan
Jack, Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dunn, Bob
Jenkin, Bernard


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jessel, Toby


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Johnston, Sir Russell


Elletson, Harold
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Enright, Derek
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Evennett, David
Key, Robert


Faber, David
Kilfedder, Sir James


Fabricant, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kirkwood, Archy


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Fishburn, Dudley
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knox, David


Forth, Eric
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Foulkes, George
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Leigh, Edward


Freeman, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Mark





Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lidington, David
Sackville, Tom


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luff, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stephen, Michael


Maxton, John
Stern, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sumberg, David


Milligan, Stephen
Sykes, John


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M.(Solihull)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moate, Sir Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thomason, Roy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Tyler, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Wallace, James


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wigley, Dafydd


Redwood, John
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Richards, Rod
Wilson, Brian


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Andrew Mackay and


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
 Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Austin-Walker, John


Ainger, Nick
Barnes, Harry






Beggs, Roy
Leighton, Ron


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lewis, Terry


Bennett, Andrew F.
Litherland, Robert


Berry, Dr. Roger
Livingstone, Ken


Boyce, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Burden, Richard
McAllion, John


Callaghan, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
Mahon, Alice


Cann, Jamie
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clapham, Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cohen, Harry
Mullin, Chris


Connarty, Michael
O'Hara, Edward


Corbyn, Jeremy
Olner, William


Corston, Ms Jean
Parry, Robert


Cummings, John
Pickthall, Colin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Dalyell, Tam
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Redmond, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Dowd, Jim
Rowlands, Ted


Eagle, Ms Angela
Simpson, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Etherington, Bill
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Snape, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)


Fraser, John
Tipping, Paddy


Galloway, George
Trimble, David


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hain, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Hanson, David
Winnick, David


Heppell, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hood, Jimmy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wright, Dr Tony


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)



Jowell, Tessa
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Khabra, Piara S.
 Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided:  Ayes 81, Noes 450.

Division No. 243]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Flynn, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Galloway, George


Austin-Walker, John
Gerrard, Neil


Barnes, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barron, Kevin
Hain, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hanson, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Heppell, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Boyce, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Callaghan, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Canavan, Dennis
Jowell, Tessa


Cann, Jamie
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Khabra, Piara S.


Clapham, Michael
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Lewis, Terry


Clelland, David
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Connarty, Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Corston, Ms Jean
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mullin, Chris


Etherington, Bill
Olner, William





Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Pickthall, Colin
Spearing, Nigel


Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Redmond, Martin
Winnick, David


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wise, Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Dr Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Simpson, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
 Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Snape, Peter



NOES


Adley, Robert
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carrington, Matthew


Allen, Graham
Carttiss, Michael


Alton, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Ancram, Michael
Clappison, James


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coe, Sebastian


Aspinwall, Jack
Coffey, Ann


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Patrick


Bates, Michael
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cran, James


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beggs, Roy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bell, Stuart
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bellingham, Henry
Darling, Alistair


Benton, Joe
Davidson, Ian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blunkett, David
Day, Stephen


Boateng, Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dewar, Donald


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dixon, Don


Bowden, Andrew
Dobson, Frank


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyes, Roland
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Bradley, Keith
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Elletson, Harold


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Enright, Derek


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Byers, Stephen
Evennett, David


Caborn, Richard
Faber, David






Fabricant, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Hoyle, Doug


Fatchett, Derek
Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Fishburn, Dudley
Hunter, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Forman, Nigel
Hutton, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Illsley, Eric


Forth, Eric
Ingram, Adam


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jack, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Foulkes, George
Jenkin, Bernard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Jessel, Toby


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Fraser, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Freeman, Roger
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


French, Douglas
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Fry, Peter
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Fyfe, Maria
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Galbraith, Sam
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)


Gale, Roger
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Gallie, Phil
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Gapes, Mike
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Gardiner, Sir George
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Key, Robert


Garnier, Edward
Kilfedder, Sir James


Garrett, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


George, Bruce
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Gillan, Cheryl
Kirkhope, Timothy


Golding, Mrs Llin
Kirkwood, Archy


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Gorst, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Graham, Thomas
Knox, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Legg, Barry


Grylls, Sir Michael
Leigh, Edward


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Gunnell, John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Hague, William
Lidington, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Lightbown, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Hannam, Sir John
Lord, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Luff, Peter


Hargreaves, Andrew
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Harman, Ms Harriet
Lynne, Ms Liz


Harris, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Harvey, Nick
Macdonald, Calum


Haselhurst, Alan
McFall, John


Hawkins, Nick
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hayes, Jerry
Maclean, David


Heald, Oliver
McLeish, Henry


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Maclennan, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Henderson, Doug
McMaster, Gordon


Hendry, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Hicks, Robert
McWilliam, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Madel, David


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Major, Rt Hon John


Hinchliffe, David
Malone, Gerald


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mans, Keith


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Marland, Paul


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Horam, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)
Martlew, Eric


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian





Maxton, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Meale, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Merchant, Piers
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Michael, Alun
Shersby, Michael


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sims, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Milligan, Stephen
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mills, Iain
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Soames, Nicholas


Moate, Sir Roger
Speed, Sir Keith


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Spellar, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Spencer, Sir Derek


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morgan, Rhodri
Spink, Dr Robert


Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)
Spring, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Sproat, Iain


Mowlam, Marjorie
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mudie, George
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Murphy, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stevenson, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stott, Roger


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Norris, Steve
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Streeter, Gary


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Sumberg, David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Sweeney, Walter


O'Hara, Edward
Sykes, John


O'Neill, Martin
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M.(Solihull)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Pendry, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Trend, Michael


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trotter, Neville


Porter, David (Waveney)
Turner, Dennis


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Tyler, Paul


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Reid, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wallace, James


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Walley, Joan


Robathan, Andrew
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Ray


Rogers, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Rooker, Jeff
Widdecombe, Ann


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wilshire, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilson, Brian


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony






Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 April]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 April], That the clause (Entry into force) be read a Second time:
`This Act shall come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order in a statutory instrument.'. —[Mr. Shore.]

Question again proposed.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Before I call the first speaker, I have a short announcement to make.
In the circumstances, I think that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members generally if I were to say now that I am prepared, after the Division on new clause 8, to select for a separate Division new clause 49, in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
I remind the Committee that in this debate we are also considering the following:

New clause 46—Ascertainment of national opinion (No. 2)—
`(1) Immediately after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council making such provision as Her Majesty thinks appropriate for ascertaining, by means of a confirmatory referendum or otherwise, the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the commencement of this Act.
(2) If a draft laid before Parliament under this section is approved by a Resolution of each House, Her Majesty in Council may make an Order in the terms of the draft; provided that the Order shall not be made unless separate provision has been made by Parliament for defraying out of public funds any expenses to be incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government Department in carrying the Order into effect.'.
Amendment (a) to new clause 46, in subsection (1), at end insert
'and also the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.

New clause 48—Commencement (Opinion of the House)—
'This Act shall not come into force until the House of Commons has expressed a view on the desirability of a referendum in each component nation of the United Kingdom with respect to the commencement of this Act.'.
Amendment (a) to new clause 48, at end add
`and on whether such referenda should consult on the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.

New clause 49—Commencement provisions—
`This Act shall take effect on the first day of January 1996 or on such earlier date as may be specified in any subsequent Act of Parliament as the date for the holding of a consultative referendum to establish whether or not majority opinion supports The Treaty on European Union.'.

Amendment (a) to new clause 49, at end add
`and also the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.

New clause 50—Referendum Motion—
'Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall place a motion before Parliament which will provide the opportunity for members of both Houses to express a view on the desirability or otherwise of seeking the views of the electors of the United Kingdom on the merits of the decision taken by Parliament in relation to the Act.'.
Amendment (a) to new clause 50, at end add
'and also on the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.

New clause 53—Transfer of powers—
'No power transferred by this Act from the United Kingdom to European institutions shall be so transferred unless and until the House of Commons has had an opportunity to assess whether it is expedient to measure, and if so by what means, the degree of support within the United Kingdom.'.
Amendment (a) to new clause 53, at end add
'for the Treaty on European Union and also for the incorporation or otherwise of the United Kingdom into the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy.'.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The association between new clauses 8 and 46 is important because, without it, the result would not be as effective as new clause 46 by itself. I note that new clause 46 is headed "Ascertainment of national opinion". I suggest that the better heading would be "Trust the people".
In discussing a new constitutional arrangement—there have been difficulties for the Chair and for some hon. Members—we have been addressing substantial constitu-tional changes that lie behind a two-clause Bill. In doing so, the intention or purpose of the Maastricht treaty has not been clear to everyone in the United Kingdom. As a result, the nation as a whole has suffered.
The Government, those on the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrats have not over-exercised themselves in trying to explain in detail what is sought through the Maastricht treaty. A continuing theme of the electorate generally is to ask what Maastricht is all about—"Why are you going on about it? What is the fuss? What is going on?". Over the many days in Committee, we have tried patiently to unpick arguments and to demonstrate—this has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that it is proposed that there should be a significant change in the balance of our constitution.
At 50 years of age, I feel old-fashioned when I talk about old verities. Before I became a Member of the House of Commons, it was unthinkable to me that we would be arguing about a transference from democratic government to new arrangements. That is why passion, anger, apprehension and fear are felt by many right hon. and hon. Members and by many other people throughout the country.
Our constitution is founded on the democratic principle, which is government of the people, by the people, for the people, but that is not the system envisaged under the Maastricht treaty. It is, in fact, a system almost of "arrangements", whereby we transfer decisions over whole areas of life—areas that have been subject to the decisions of the House and have been absolute in that term, subject to such time as we wish to repeal or reform them.
7.30 pm
As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), the Bill demonstrates that the British Government are proposing that the British people enter a new political state. It is as simple as that. They give no reasons as to why this is absolutely essential. They indicate that it is in the national interest, but will not give details.
It has always been open to the Government to issue a White Paper. In the 1970s, a White Paper was issued, reassuring Members of Parliament and the country at large that the absolute principle within our conventions of ministerial accountability would remain in place and that ultimately a British Minister could exercise a veto.
Maastricht has no truck with any of that nonsense. The old verity of democratic control—whereby the people, when they voted, could change Governments and thereby change laws—is lost in large measure under the provisions of the Bill.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Is not my hon. Friend making a critique of the European Communities Act 1972? Was it not in that Act, whereby we joined the Community, that the system of Community law—which is really what he is attacking—was instituted, approved by the House and subsequently approved by a referendum? Rather than the modifications in the Single European Act or the treaty of Maastricht, is it not that step, 20 years ago, which produced the situation that he is now attacking?

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend has made what I consider a very valid point. When I was a man of 30 and these arguments were put, I did not realise the significance of a new system of law to which the British system of law became subordinate. That did not come out to me, as an elector, during the debates. That was profoundly important. I have come to recognise the difficulties that all persons, whether of good will to these arrangements or not, have subsequently had to face as it has progressively moved on in what I think a right hon. Friend of ours called the ratchet effect, after leaving the Front Bench.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will recollect that between 1972 and 1975, when the referendum was held, we were told that we would be retaining the right of the veto and that that would put our Government and Ministers in a strong position; that we would never have things forced upon us. The debate that took place at that time was largely on a false prospectus, because we did not go into the details adequately—except those of us campaigning the other way. We were not listened to; we were told we were wrong. Subsequently, we have been shown to be right.

Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend was wiser than I. I now absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says. Like the general public at large, I could not weigh things fully then, and I voted in the referendum for the renegotiated terms of our membership. It was a judgment that I had to make because I believed in the arguments. I remember well that the basic argument that was predicted was that it was in our economic interests. The "cold bath"—I think it was called—of Europe would revitalise our fogged-up and


fuggy processes, and the dynamism of the new competitive impetus would bring us into a new era of Elysian fields and perpetual harmony.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that when those in the "no" campaign were putting forward the accurate, clear and precise words now said by the Foreign Secretary, we were told that we were deliberately misleading the public and causing unnecessary trouble? Does he further accept that if the clear, precise and truthful words said by the Foreign Secretary had been said during the 1972 referendum, people might well have voted no, as they should have?

Mr. Shepherd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend now. As life goes on, of course, we make different judgments as further and better particulars, experience and our own wisdom improve.
We started with a system of democratic accountable government. However imperfect it was—however much we made fools of ourselves in the eyes of the public—there was, nevertheless, a basic trust that if the people voted and expressed a view, it affected the laws and government of our country. That is—or was—fundamental to our system of government.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shepherd: No; I want to develop my argument.
Between that period and today, we have been confronted with what effectively, behind a two-clause Bill, is the outline of a new constitution. That constitution proposes that the whole range of issues that we discuss, whether they be education, transport systems or—most important to someone like myself—citizenship, are to be secured by two clauses, and we may not change the substance of that constitution. I can think of no arrangement in the development of a free and democratic world—certainly within the English-speaking traditions —whereby two Front Benches willingly accept the concept that we may dismiss the democratic argument.
That is why I call it the old verity. I feel old fashioned, standing here and trying to propose a new clause called "Ascertainment of national opinion"—what I would call "Trust the people." We cannot doubt that transferring control over economic and monetary policies to an unelected central bank somewhere else means that the institution of government becomes a Council of Ministers, meeting in secret, to pass laws on these matters at the sole suggestion of the centralising bureaucracy—the single institutional framework, as it is called—that permeates the new arrangements.
We should use the old tests of democracy—"How do I change the law?" That is a simple question which we have taken for granted over the years. It is so evident and so obvious—you change your Member of Parliament or convince him by argument. Ultimately, if your Member of Parliament is unsympathetic to your argument, you campaign, argue and reason as part of a democratic debate, which has an outcome in the laws under which you live.
Our rule of law has that as its essential trust: it expects obedience. We in the House all expect obedience to the law, and we can demand it on the basis that there is a proper democratic route by which we can change the law. It may be Anglo-Saxon, English, Scottish or Northern

Irish—it may be peculiar to our own islands—but, within the English-speaking world, it is the very basis of our understanding of democracy.
That is at issue here. The debates on the Bill have, if they have done nothing else, demonstrated very clearly the framework of the new constitutional arrangements. I can think of no system of democratic government on earth that would take away the rights of ordinary people, without explanation, and ultimately without regard to their view in the matter.
That is the purpose behind the new clause—to return the question to our own fellow electors. None of us is different from them. We have the privilege to represent them, but the powers that we exercise are their powers. I am now a low Tory—I have had the benefit of high Toryism—but this is a people's democracy. This is our Parliament, which will determine the framework of our lives.
I listened very carefully to what was said at our party conference. There is a greater national interest. The national interest, no less, is invoked but there is no explanation of why that national interest should do away with the democratic traditions in this country secured over two or three centuries. The long, slow march of Everyman is set aside in a single Act of Parliament which is intended to be irrevocable and irreversible.
In those very phrases, we contradict the conventions of which we were so proud. We were always deemed not to need a written constitution in the United Kingdom because we were secure in who we were, and in our conventions and arrangements. Dicey, Jennings, and every constitutional writer that we have had, asserted them. Indeed, in a half-hearted way, what I now think of as a miserable tome, "Erskine May", records that. It records the moving away from democratic government. We feel the diffidence within the House now that we feel that there are so many things we can no longer challenge. That is reflected in the diffidence of hon. Members. There are so many things that we feel we cannot challenge. Gosh, what poor imitations we are of our forebears. But we are the inheritors of a great system. Therefore, my old verity—the verity on which most of us were elected to this House—ought to be proclaimed and shouted for.
If we are to give away democratic government, we must be able to put that argument clearly to the people. That may well happen, with megaphones in Downing street, megaphones upstairs in Committee and Front Benchers getting an overbearing voice into the ear of the public. But never doubt—out there is the drip, drip, drip that something ain't right about these arrangements.
When, last Thursday, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that it was a stitch up, he struck a chord with the people. They are deeply dissatisfied with this measure. They are right to be dissatisfied. I have said, from the time of the last election, that I cannot vote for the passing of this measure without the issue being returned to the British people for their decision. I have not heard one word from the party that used to fight for the right to a vote, or from the Treasury Bench, as to why the surrender of democratic, accountable government is right. As historians look at the record of each day's debate, they will find that the most extraordinary feature of this one is that the great, democratic parties of the United Kingdom were unable at any time during the debate to address the question of democratic government. Democracy has gone out of fashion.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend speaks about the surrender of democracy. I know how strongly he feels on the subject, but does he not recognise that not just this country but the 11 other member states of the Community are deeply attached to the principle of democracy? Is my hon. Friend suggesting that all the people of Europe have been bamboozled by this extraordinary conspiracy to overthrow democracy? Even if he believes that that is credible, is it not slightly perverse of him, if he is concerned about democracy, democratic accountability and the democratic deficit in the Community, to oppose the Maastricht treaty, which incorporates a number of steps to increase democratic accountability? My hon. Friend mentioned that the Council of Ministers meets in secret, but he seems to have forgotten that at the Edinburgh summit it was agreed for the first time that those meetings should now be open. Does he not welcome that fact?

Mr. Shepherd: I have never claimed that I am well schooled, but after remarks like that I feel remarkably well schooled in the traditions and constitution of my country. I am not responsible for how other noble, great countries pursue their own systems of government. However, we have a duty to pay regard to our system of government. I was elected by the people of Aldridge-Brownhills to try to safeguard that with which I was entrusted. If my constituents' right to democratic government is to be taken away, ought they not to be asked about it?
This extraordinary legislation is predicated without a mandate. The ill schooled may suggest that there is a general mandate. As we pointed out at the last election, three parties took for granted the fact that this was to come about. I searched and waited. Where was the appeal from the party leaders—"We must have Maastricht's form of government"? But that is only one route out of many that the Community may take.
The Government now tell us that at the next intergovernmental conference the shape of the new constitution will be refined in our interests, since this one is not satisfactory. The fact is that it is not satisfactory for the whole of Europe. My case, though, is based not on what is satisfactory for the whole of Europe but on what is appropriate for Britain.
There were two copies of the Conservative party manifesto in my constituency. My agent had one; I had the other. It was forwarded, unfortunately, after I had had the opportunity to give guidance to my electorate as to the principles by which I stood. I am told by Conservative central office that between 120,000 and 130,000 copies of the manifesto were published. I imagine that, somewhere, there is a warehouse in which they are gathering dust, awaiting the wonderful day when my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will be able to auction them off as a lot of great constitutional significance. All that the Conservative party manifesto said about Maastricht was, "Haven't the Government done well to negotiate the Maastricht agreement?"
I have no idea what the Labour party manifesto said, because it did not seem to penetrate Aldridge-Brownhills. Some of my constituents were, no doubt, blessed with gaining possession of the Labour party's central doctrine on Maastricht. Conservative central office also advised us by means of a little leaflet—a quick guide to what the Conservative party stood for. There were many more copies of that leaflet. In fact, we used it as an election

leaflet. We scoured it for the new form of constitution that the Government invest so much faith in. They did not discuss it during the general election campaign, but they have troubled the House of Commons with it for nearly 15 months.
Let us consider the sequence. The Maastricht treaty was never available to the House of Commons. It fluttered in —the Minister of State claimed with pride some responsibility, and rightly so, for this—through the window of the Library. There were mimeographed copies of the treaty, but it was incomprehensible and difficult to read. A few Members were troubled by it, but the Government's arguments centred on what would be excluded from discussion. They secured two exclusions, but it is unsatisfactory to approach a constitutional issue in that way.
We had a debate last November in which I spoke on that matter. Although both the Treasury Bench and the Opposition Bench should have taken it on board, not one word was said about democracy. That is shameful. We ought to have greater regard for that which justifies our presence here.

Mr. John Gorst: The way that my hon. Friend talks suggests that he believes that British democracy for British people can be performed only in a theatre called the House of Commons or the Palace of Westminster. Let us substitute for the word "democracy" the word "Shakespeare". If, instead of taking the view that Shakespeare can be performed only in British theatres, we took Shakespeare and democracy for the British people abroad and tried to make it work in a much larger entity, as well as trying to make it work in specific ways here, would that not be much better? Is my hon. Friend not taking far too narrow a view of the issue?

Mr. Shepherd: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is driving at. I am here by virtue of the fact of my citizenship. I am British. I was born in Scotland and represent a west midlands constituency. I have to look to those who are my ain folk, if I may use that term. I have to consider what are the best ways in which we can form a system of government. I can think of no finer and more civilised form of government that reflects the will of the people than democratic self-government through our institutions. We are capable of corrupting them, as these measures have demonstrated. We corrupt them by our lack of candour about them.
We are told that Maastricht represents a great gain. The national interest, no less, is the argument. We are told to pander to the people and tell them why their freedoms, rights and long-secured traditions, attitudes and ways of looking at life, formed within our hearts in this common society, must pass away and that they must be ruled by a Council of Ministers, still meeting in secrecy, apart from a few televised illustrations of what could come about, and by a bureaucracy under Mr. Delors—unelected, but acting as though he were the prime minister of a great state, no less—who wants to be the President of the Commission.
The treaty seeks to make us citizens of somewhere else. Slowly, the Government—or Ministers, including the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—have come, to their surprise, to understand that the treaty makes the Queen a citizen of Europe. I make that point to


demonstrate a profound shift in the concept of Queen and Parliament. I know that this idea is not well explained in our schools. The Secretary of State for Education should perhaps consider the introduction of a course on British democracy. That might demonstrate that we have something to be proud of and that there courses through our bones the means of control over our state.
The central thrust is that we have a constitution. I am being asked to be a citizen by Act of Parliament on a matter of the most profound sentiment, but without any reference to me. How do I feel? How does any British person outside the House feel when he is told that he is now a citizen of a new political organisation in which the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent and in which the European Court of Justice is the supreme court which will interpret the laws outside our traditions and courts?

Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend is speaking as if the referendum is the traditional form of British parliamentary democracy. The reality is that it is our representative system of democracy which forms the basis of this place, and it is the referendum which will corrupt that system. Has not my hon. Friend learnt from his mistake last time when he voted in a referendum which effectively set in concrete the arrangements made at that time and which made it far more difficult for any subsequent changes to be introduced?

Mr. Shepherd: I am slightly surprised by what my right hon. Friend says about the concept of the referendum. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is here. The then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, said that these things would be achieved with the full-hearted consent of the British people and Parliament. It is a language which one does not usually associate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and, as often as not, it is attributed to the Foreign Secretary. Even in those words, there is a profound understanding that, to secure the changes, one requires the whole-hearted consent not only of Parliament but of the British people. That theme has run through the history of the Conservative party in the 20th century.
I put on the record the Conservative party's constitutional amendment of 1911 moved by A. J. Balfour.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My hon. Friend and I have often discussed this question. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) put their arguments in almost continental terms of great principles, but our unwritten constitution has muddled its way forward not by the exposition of great abstract principles such as they suggest but by ordinary people saying in a muddling way that something is not quite right. They do not understand why it is not quite right, but they know that something should be done.
Surely one of the strongest cases for the referendum is based not on abstract principles as to whether, on the whole, we are in favour of a referendum or not—on the whole, I am much against referendums—but on the fact that something is not quite right about the extremely authoritarian way in which the Government have dealt with their supporters. They have encouraged constituency supporters to attack sitting Members of Parliament in a way which is deeply antipathetic to the traditions of the Tory party. There is also something not quite right about the disgraceful way in which the Government have dealt with the House.
It is because there is something not quite right that those of us who think not in terms of great principles but in pragmatic and Tory terms come to the reluctant conclusion that the only way in which the Government's disgraceful behaviour can be rectified is by dealing with it through the otherwise rather unattractive mechanism of a referendum.

Mr. Shepherd: I always enjoy the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I have no doubt that his course has been to protect the interests of the citizens of Wolverhampton so that they may vote on every matter with authority, and that the preservation of that principle has been central to his arguments.
Balfour ended his speech of 8 May 1911 on his constitutional amendment with these words:
I am quite convinced the more this proposal is talked of in this House and the country the more it will receive support. There are difficulties in its application … but still in the Referendum lies our one hope of getting the sort of constitutional security which every other country but our own enjoys … I further believe, so far from its demoralising, that it would be a great practical education in politics. How many elections are now fought on purely personal grounds. How many … give their vote blue or yellow because they have always voted so, or because their fathers voted so. How often a man is content to say, 'I stick to my party, I am loyal to the principles I always professed' or, like a Scotch voter … who said, 'Tariff Reform is an excellent policy, and as soon as the Liberals bring it in, I will vote for it most heartily'"—
gone are those days.
How many elections are decided by sentiments of that kind, and very respectable sentiments they are, too. I really think to have a controversy thrashed out in the House and then in the Second Chamber, and then refer it to the electors … not on the merits of either … the Government or the party, but on the merits of the Bill itself, that that, so far from currupting the sources of democratic life, would only be a great education for political people … I am convinced whatever is done now that the controversy that has been started on this great method of constitutional reform must and will bear fruit, and that before long, and practically in the lifetime of all of us, we may see this great democratic engine brought into practice."—[Official Report, 8 May 1911; Vol. XXV, c. 935.]
It took many years and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to introduce a referendum to the United Kingdom in the form of border polls in Northern Ireland. In that principle was the recognition that for great constitutional change one had to ask the people and that, as it was a continuing question, it should be repeated each time. We are long overdue in putting another question to the electors of Northern Ireland, but the principle has fed through Conservative politics all the years of this century.
The only example I can find of a Prime Minister who has not served in a Cabinet that has recommended a referendum or has not recommended a referendum himself is the present Prime Minister. All other leaders of our party in this century have either served in Cabinets that recommended a referendum at some time or have themselves recommended it.

Mr. Hurd: Is not my hon. Friend being a little economic with history? He might not recall—but my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will—that the principle was last discusssed in the House in relation to Europe in 1975, before my hon. Friend's recent Bill. These arguments were deployed at a time, I would argue, when the case for a referendum was strongest because it was then, or a couple of years before, that the


House had accepted the principle of Community law, the relationship between the House and the institutions of the Community and the jurisdiction of the European Court. The things about which my hon. Friend is most disturbed were accepted then.
Two or three years later, the question arose whether there should be a referendum. The Conservative party, in opposition, had to make up its mind. On that occasion, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition—aroness Thatcher—ealt with the questions of principle but homed in on the conclusion drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) that the old-fashioned verities of which my hon. Friend speaks were reflected in the principle of representative democracy and that we owed our constituents not only our industry but our judgment. That was what we were for. On that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I and many others—elatively new Members —ent into the House behind our leader precisely on that point of principle to vote for representative democracy and against a referendum.

Mr. Shepherd: That may be so. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will remember that, towards the end of her speech, the then Leader of the Opposition also accepted the principle that there could be referendums at some future stage when profound matters were in question. It is true that at that time the Conservative party voted against the referendum, but there is no great consistency, because in 1972 the party voted for a referendum when in government. I was merely trying to point out that this is not such a vexed question of representative government that we diminish Parliament; I would argue that we reinforce it. I take the Balfour view and that of all our political leaders, even Winston Churchill.
I see that some of my hon. Friends now cite Attlee's response to Churchill's request for a continuation of the wartime coalition against Japan by the device of a referendum. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary ill perhaps recall—from his reading, as he is too young to recall it in any other way—that Attlee said then that referendums were the devices of dictators and de-magogues. Indeed, one can understand why he might say that, having lived through the Europe of the 1930s, in which the Hitlers, the Mussolinis and the Francos of this world used the referendum as an instrument for just such purposes. I understand the diffidence within the usual and traditional British political culture, and the reasons why one would be wary.
However, the fundamental question is whether there are any issues that should be returned to the electorate. Dicey would have said, as he ultimately did—

8 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shepherd: I am trying to talk about some rather important matters, and I want to develop my argument.
Are there any questions that should be returned to the electorate? I, and many other hon. Members, contend that the Bill is such an issue because the treaty purports to be

"irrevocable" and "irreversible". Those words are used in the treaty, and that concept goes much against the political culture and tradition that my right hon. Friend identified.
My right hon. Friend could say that such matters have already been disposed of, but I find it difficult to present to the British nation as a whole the facts that there is a range of laws, that there is an independent central bank elsewhere issuing currency, and that, despite all our experience, there is a drive towards the reinstatement of the exchange rate mechanism in stage 2. It is a moot point. We have legal judgment on my side of the argument; the Government advance their own legal judgment, and the matter will be determined ultimately by the Commission and the European Court.

Mr. Marlow: Should my hon. Friend's answer to the Foreign Secretary not be as follows? Our right hon. Friend is saying that we are a representative democracy. We are a representative democracy—just. But if the Bill goes through we shall not be one, so we want a referendum before we cease to be a representative democracy.

Mr. Shepherd: Of course I agree with that; otherwise I should not be proposing a referendum.

Mr. Gorst: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that, certainly in recent years, referendums have been called in aid when Governments have been in difficulties, and have been requested when those who are calling for them are losing the argument?

Mr. Shepherd: That observation is often made, and there is some truth in it. We know full well that the referendum of the mid-1970s, which I thought wholly right and appropriate, came about because of the difficulties within the party then in government. However, the motive by which one arrives at a conclusion does not mean that the conclusion itself is wrong. The Government were wholly right to hold a referendum because they had to invite the British public—

Mr. Alex Salmond: May I comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Hendon, -North (Mr. Gorst)? He cannot possibly be correct, because the case for the referendum will be made this evening both by people who are against Maastricht, such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and by people who are for Maastricht, such as myself. We cannot both be losing the argument.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Although masses of things can be done within a parliamentary democracy, is not the principle that there is one thing that a parliamentary democracy cannot do, and that is to give up its operation of parliamentary democracy? If that is to be done, some other method must be used to ratify the decision. Normally, such decisions could do no more than pass things over to another parliamentary democracy, but that is not happening with Maastricht, because things are being passed over to a bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the reason for a referendum is based on the principles of representative government and parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Shepherd: I absolutely agree. The difficulty for our argument has been that the people outside did not have the benefit of reading the treaty. We must remember that it was not published until a week before Second Reading, so all the new hon. Members who entered the House did not have the opportunity to reflect on the contentions of the


treaty during the general election. If their electorate had asked them what it was about, they would have been unable to say.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with what the Foreign Secretary said about Burke's great speech setting out our duties. When Burke made that speech, it was true that a Member of Parliament often had a difficult time with his patron, but not necessarily with his party. Now we have the tyranny of the party, which has prevented Members of Parliament from expressing their views on the treaty freely. There can be little doubt that there would not be a free majority for the Maastricht treaty on the Government side if it were not for the operation of the party machine.

Mr. Shepherd: I accept the argument, but I notice that the House has provided a wonderful forum for my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to express his views courageously and clearly. What he has said today gives a cheer for our democracy, but to speak in that way requires more courage than it did in the past, when the sentiment of the people was so clearly that they expected their Member of Parliament to be able to express freely, courageously, loudly and boldly his views on matters that affected their lives and well-being. I also reflect that Burke lost the election after having written that letter. I believe that if any of us sent such a letter to our constituents today he would probably lose the election, too.

Mr. Peter Luff: I respect the integrity and sincerity of my hon. Friend's belief that the issue before us is the single most important issue facing the country. and therefore deserves a referendum. However, in my constituency a referendum is already being conducted. There are six questions, not one, on the ballot paper. The first is indeed about Maastricht; another is about the principle of a referendum; another is about a freedom of information Bill. There is also a question about the use of urban rather than rural land for development, and the last two are about live animal transport and hunting with hounds. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the person organising the referendum believes that the last of those six questions is the single most important issue confronting the people of this country, and that is why the referendum is being organised. Does my hon. Friend not accept that he is letting a dangerous genie out of the bottle by proposing a referendum?

Mr. Shepherd: Clearly my hon. Friend must pursue his own arguments with his own electorate, but I find it deeply disturbing if someone says that the power of the vote is something trivial, and that its passing away is of no consequence. The heart of the matter is that we are trying to take away irrevocably and irreversibly the traditional strengths that our democratic constitution has had.
In terms of exposition, a referendum is one of the best ways of informing an electorate about the issues in contention. I have always argued that on the most profound political questions—that is, constitutional questions—I believe, as A. J. Balfour did, that the device of the referendum should be available to our people. It would take the party struggle out of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) could then truthfully pursue his argument and I could pursue mine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton,

South-West has said, there would be no fear of the Whips. This is a matter for the people out there. They would be asked, "Do you or do you not want the constitutional arrangements that follow from Maastricht?"
The people know that there is something corrupt in all this. It cannot be right that their rights are being taken away without a reference back to them. Certainly it is wrong for that to happen without its having been a major issue in an election. We used to have the principle of what was called the specific mandate. From time to time during our history, there has been an election in which there has been such fury over a single issue that no one has had any doubt about the will of the people as expressed in the outcome. That has not happened in recent years, and certainly no one could call 1992 an election with a specific mandate on the concept of Maastricht. Yet the Front-Bench Members, on both sides of the House implicitly accept that the 1992 election conferred the right to change the constitution so profoundly. I hope that the Labour party will see that there is an advantage in returning the question to the country.

Mr. Ian Taylor: It increasingly appears that the difference between us is an assessment of how best to look after the interests of our constituents, given that the decision to enter the Community, with all the institutional implications, was made back in the 1970s. The effect of the Maastricht treaty is to redefine some of the commitments that we as a country made a considerable time ago, when we accepted that, because sovereignty was not like virginity, which one either has or does not have, but was a multi-layered concept, looking after the interests of our constituents often meant that we as Members of Parliament could have more influence by working together within the Community institutions, by looking after the Executive in this place, which represented us in those institutions, and by occasionally working with the European Parliament, rather than by attempting to ignore everything else and saying that only what happened in this place could protect the interests of our constituents.
In my view, Maastricht does not mark a fundamental departure. It marks a continuation of what we set out to do. Indeed, it provides various means of strengthening the process.

Mr. Shepherd: That is the conveyor-belt argument and I look forward to challenging my hon. Friend in the referendum campaigns around the country. We should trust the people. Let them decide the difference between the two arguments. At the end of the day, that is all I am saying. We are talking about powers that we are moving. They are not my powers or the powers of the House. This House is the symbol of the sovereignty of the people.
Because of the constitutional concepts, the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament has been able to embrace monarchical government, oligarchical government and very limited government, but in the age of democratic government we try to use our Parliament as the instrument to safeguard that democratic quality. It has been the instrument by which we have overcome monarchical, oligarchical and other forms of government.
Many hon. Members will claim that we did not have democracy in Britain until we had the enfranchisement of women and, therefore, we did not have true parliamentary democracy until the late 1920s. However, we are now suggesting that those who have the vote and who send us


here will be diminished by this measure. Of itself, that is enough to send it back and have a referendum. We should trust the people.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in the debate. At the outset, I must state that I do not support the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). As I listened to his entertaining and passionate speech, I felt that I had been there before and that I had heard those arguments when our country was taken into the European Community in 1972. We were told then that that would be the end of parliamentary democracy and that the position and authority of the House, and of hon. Members in it, would be completely and irrevocably undermined. We were told that those irrevocable steps, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills described them, would diminish our ability to represent our constituents and the country effectively.

Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: Not just at the moment.
I have always believed that nothing is irrevocable in a democracy. The nature and purpose of democracy is to facilitate and allow change if the Government of the day win a mandate for change. I do not accept that decisions taken in any democratic country can be categorised as irrevocable.
If the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills thinks about it for a moment, he might realise that what might be irrevocable are circumstances in which we increasingly abdicate the responsibilities of this House by taking more and more decisions by plebiscite. In the long term, that would be the biggest single threat to the authority of Parliament and it would undermine parliamentary democracy in the way that we have always had it. I believe that the argument is the reverse of the way in which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills presented it to the Committee this evening.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?

Dr. Cunningham: No, not just at the moment. I have literally just begun my speech and I do not wish to speak at great length because the situation is quite simple.
During our membership of the Community, which was not originally the subject of a referendum—although as the Foreign Secretary quite candidly said, when we had a referendum it was opposed by the Conservative party in opposition—it has been argued that a referendum would resolve the question once and for all. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills quite rightly said, there have been other referendums to settle the question. However, there is no evidence to support that conclusion.
The question of British membership of the Community was not settled by the referendum and the campaign against membership of the Community continues today. We have witnessed a manifestation of that, at least in part, in the nature of our debates and discussions in the Chamber over the past few weeks.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether an irrevocable change was taking place. Only a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman voted against amendment No. 225 which related to the
Protocol on the transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union
which dealt with the central bank. According to the protocol—and the right hon. Gentleman has voted to sustain this position—
The high contracting parties,"—
including the United Kingdom and its Government whom the right hon. Gentleman is supporting—
Declare the irreversible character of the Community's movement to the third stage … and … no Member State shall prevent the entering into the third stage"—
and the third stage must start and continue—
irrevocably on 1 January 1999.
The right hon. Gentleman has just contradicted what he voted for in respect of amendment No. 225.

Dr. Cunningham: Before we reach that point, there will be another vote in the House of Commons to determine that issue. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and reinforced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), that that irrevocable decision is being taken now is not borne out by the facts.
My point is that, in my experience, whenever referendums are held, for example, in Northern Ireland, in respect of devolution in Scotland and on membership of the Community, they have never finally decided the issue. Shortly after the outcome of those referendums, the campaigns have continued as before. There is no way of preventing that in a democracy.
If I am fortunate enough to be addressing the House from the Opposition Front Bench in a few years time—or perhaps more fortunate to be addressing the House from the Government Front Bench—I believe that we will still be having these arguments in the House and in the country as a whole. I cannot accept the argument that a referendum will finally allow the people to decide the issue.

Mr. Michael Lord: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the fears of people in 1975, about what would happen as a result of our entering the Common Market, have not been realised. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman represents an agricultural constituency, as I do. He must be aware of the agricultural problems that I have to solve and he will be aware just how impotent my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to solve the problems that I, as a Back Bencher, take to him.
Europe has intervened more in our national affairs in respect of agriculture than anywhere else and, as an agriculture Member, I can no longer represent my constituents as I should. With regard to agriculture, the fears expressed in 1975 were entirely justified.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept that argument. That is an argument for not being part of the CAP and for not being part of the Community. That makes my point that the argument about membership of the Community was not finally resolved by the referendum in 1975. There will always be people in Britain, be they farmers or industrialists—

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way at the moment. I must be allowed to deal with one intervention before I give way to another.
As the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) said, there are many farmers in my constituency in perhaps 350 square miles of west and south Cumbria. Some of them support our membership of the Community, some are exasperated by it and some are implacably opposed to it. However, the idea that there is a uniform view about the benefits or disadvantages of membership of the Community for the people in the various agricultural industries does not hold water.
Over the past 20 years, some aspects of agriculture have benefited enormously from aspects of the CAP—perhaps more so than many of us would have wished. However, to suggest that it has all been negative and downhill for British agriculture since we have been in the Community—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?

Dr. Cunningham: Very well, let us get it over with now.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—[Interruption.] He is on this point. I used to represent his area. It was never easy work going to the Minister of Agriculture because one had to go through an iron-fisted Chancellor. It is a jolly sight easier in many ways to argue in Brussels than to argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Dr. Cunningham: I cannot resist the temptation of saying that perhaps an iron-fisted Chancellor would be better than the clay-footed one we have at present. I substantially agree with the hon. Lady's point. She is a constituency neighbour of mine and used to represent my constituents in the European Parliament.
Another aspect of the intervention on agriculture bears some scrutiny. The implication was that, if we had not been in the European Community and had not been subject to some of the—I am prepared to concede—vicissitudes of the common agricultural policy, everything in the garden, perhaps I should say pastures, would have been wonderful for our farmers. I cannot accept that as a legitimate conclusion.
I am not convinced that we should have a referendum because it would finally and irrevocably settle the issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall make a little progress. I am a little confused as to why so many Conservative Members did not raise all these issues when the Single European Bill was before the House. Not only did that Act make some important and far-reaching changes to our circumstances, but Conservative Members who were in the House at the time voted to have it guillotined. To contrast the lime allocated for discussion on and deliberation of the intricate details of the Maastricht treaty with the performance of the Conservative party and the Government at that time is instructive because Conservative Members voted not only to have the Single European Act—

Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I have not yet finished making my point so it is a little unreasonable to ask me to give way on it.
Conservative Members voted to curtail discussion on the Single European Bill. At that time, there were no great campaigns or claims that we were giving away irrevocably the powers of this Parliament, undermining parliamentary democracy as we have always known it or betraying the wishes of the British people. The attitude was that it was hell for leather—let us get it through. That is in stark contrast to the views now being expressed at least by some Conservative Members.

Mr. John Carlisle: Several Conservative Members in the House at present did not vote for the Single European Act. I continue to be worried about the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word "irrevocable". He said earlier that nothing was irrevocable. Is not that the crux of this debate? In reality, if we give away our sovereignty and effectively put into British law something whereby we are not controlled by the British Parliament but by 11 other countries—and who knows how many other countries there will be as more join the Community —that is irrevocable, even if all the countries agree to change the law. Is not that the crux of the argument? The magnitude of the problem and the magnitude of the subject mean that we are entitled to say that this is a subject on which the British people should have a say.

Dr. Cunningham: I am for the British people having a say in general elections—in assessing how I represent them and how I perform with regard to the interests of the people in my constituency. They have the opportunity to decide whether they want me to continue to represent them. I do not accept that people do not have a say.
At the general election, the Labour party made it clear that it strongly supports membership of the European Community. We made no secret of that. I am prepared to accept that those issues were not pre-eminent in the election campaign in which we all participated last year. Nevertheless, it is wrong to say that people, either as individual candidates or as political parties, did not have an opportunity to raise the issues or question them.

Mr. John Townend: At the general election, what opportunity was there for the members of the electorate who opposed Maastricht when all the major parties were for Maastricht? They had no choice whatever, and that is the main argument for a referendum.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept that. The majority of voters drew a conclusion from the fact that all political parties came to the judgment that the best interests of our country lay in being a full-hearted member of the European Community.

Mr. Townend: They had no choice.

Dr. Cunningham: It was the collective view: the hon. Gentleman is right. I think that it was the unanimous view of the political parties. It was also the right view.

Mr. Tony Benn: I am listening with great attention. First, my right hon. Friend knows that the Maastricht treaty was negotiated after the 1991 Labour party conference. Therefore, there was no party commitment whatever to Maastricht during our conference. Secondly, the treaty had not been published in English at the time of the general election and, therefore,


people not only did not know what it was but were told that—[Interruption.] Of course, they did not know the details. It has taken hours of debate in Committee to bring out the details. The Labour party national executive and the shadow Cabinet came out for the treaty without having any authority from the party conference.

Dr. Cunningham: At least some of that intervention is true: it is a matter of record. If my right hon. Friend's argument is that I have no authority to stand here on behalf of the Labour party and advance these views, he is wrong. In 1992 at the Labour party conference, an overwhelming majority of the national executive committee and the shadow Cabinet voted in favour of the Maastricht process, as did the Trades Union Congress and most of the constituent members of the trade unions. Therefore, I cannot accept that there has been no consultation, deliberation or debate about our view on the merits or otherwise of the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Austin Mitchell: There was no consultation.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept that: there was widespread consultation within our party and with people in our constituencies—and it has continued ever since.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that, consistently in the past 18 months, public opinion polls and surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of British people—Conservative voters, Labour voters and others—wished to have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? The poll that took place in February 1993 showed that 73 per cent. of the people in the United Kingdom wished to have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

Dr. Cunningham: I am aware of how public opinion stands and how it fluctuates. In the past, I dare say that there have been occasions when the hon. Gentleman—I do not want to misrepresent his views—has campaigned for matters such as capital punishment on the basis of public opinion. If we had simply taken public opinion as our guiding light, rather than our judgment in such matters, and if capital punishment had been reintroduced—

Several hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Dr. Cunningham: If we took note of public opinion at a specific time, all sorts of arguments would be adduced in favour of referendums. I return to my point about the speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
8.30 pm
Then we would have referendums on the basis of snapshots of public opinion. If we had acceded to that request, a whole lot of people who have subsequently been found to be wrongly convicted might have been executed as a result of simply giving in to public opinion without further and proper consideration of the issues. So I am not persuaded by that argument.

Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that if capital punishment had existed in Britain people who have been found innocent would already have been executed.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lots of people would not have been murdered.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Lady contain herself?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great distinction to be made between matters, however controversial, which Parliament should decide—whether capital punishment or any other issue—allowing the electorate to decide in the general election whether in its judgment we were right or wrong, and great constitutional issues such as that which we are debating today? Surely the British people should have some say about whether further economic and political power should be transferred from Britain to the European Community. On that issue alone many Opposition Members believe that a referendum would be justified.

Dr. Cunningham: I know my hon. Friend's view. I have just set out my reasons for not accepting his argument. I see no force in what he says to persuade me that the British people have not had the opportunity—

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I am being fairly generous in taking interventions. I am just beginning to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I have been asked to give way again. Regretfully, I have to say, "Sorry, not for the moment." In response to my hon. Friend—I had better address the Committee, but I feel uncomfortable speaking to him with my back to him—I would say that one thing is absolutely sure: a referendum approved by the House, containing a question tabled by a Conservative Government, would not provide the British people with one of the options that we want them to have. We want them to have the opportunity to vote on whether we should adopt the social chapter.
Furthermore, the best hope that we have of achieving agreement that the social chapter should apply in our country is not to have a referendum but to win a vote, hopefully during the Report stage of these proceedings. That is the best option for achieving the most important political objective that our party has set itself in the debate in the Committee.

Mr. Salmond: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's major difficulty, perhaps he will support our amendment to one of the new clauses on the amendment paper this evening. To reach that new clause we must first pass new clause 49 in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Is he aware that today the Scottish Trades Union Congress overwhelmingly voted in favour of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? Does not that show that there has been some change of mind since the conferences last year on which the right hon. Gentleman put so much emphasis?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I do not know whether it will be put to a Division, but it seems to me that he is offering me something of a false prospectus. He is saying that if only


we agree to supporrt the argument for a general referendum, there is a hope—but no certainty—that his amendment will have the support of the same majority. I do not believe that many Conservative Members—I do not wish to malign them—who are strongly in favour of a referendum on whether we should endorse the Maastricht treaty will vote for the inclusion of a question about the social chapter. They see the social chapter as one of the greatest single threats from the European Community to what they regard as the future well-being of Britain.

Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot accommodate all the interventions if I give way to the same hon. Gentleman twice in a couple of minutes. He is offering me a false prospectus and I do not have too much difficulty in rejecting it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Then I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The only hopeful thing that has happened in a miserable day is the statement by the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is irrevocable. Will he take some time to explain how the House of Commons could legally turn anything back once the Maastricht treaty was ratified? If he could explain that, it would be one of the most hopeful things to have happened today. Our interpretation is that there is no lawful way in which the Houses of Parliament could go backwards once Maastricht was through.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has to convince the British people to elect a Government who would repeal or withdraw—[Interruption.] It is not inconceivable, at least in theory, that a Government could be elected who had come to the conclusion that Britain's membership of the Community was no longer in the best interests of the country. That is why I say that in a democracy, by definition, things can be changed as a result of a change in Government.[Interruption.] No Parliament can irrevocably bind its successor. [HON MEMBERS: "Yes, it can."]

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No. I said that I would give way for the last time to the hon. Member for Southend, East, and then draw my remarks to a conclusion. I must then keep a much delayed engagement before returning to the Committee later in the debate.

Mr. Duncan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No. I cannot speak for the Conservative party.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Or for the Labour party.

Dr. Cunningham: I am speaking about decisions taken by the Labour party, about which my hon. Friend apparently feels cavalier. Those decisions were taken overwhelmingly by the national executive committee. The

shadow Cabinet and the party conference. That is the position on which I base my remarks to the Committee today. They were properly and constitutionally taken decisions of the party. I do not know how my hon. Friend can say from a sedentary position that I do not speak on behalf of the Labour party. Those decisions are clear and on the record. There is no point in disputing them.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is telling us that the abandonment of powers under the treaty is not irrevocable. He says that another Parliament or Government could take them back. Under the treaty, especially after we have gone into monetary union—it may be a separate decision, but it is a binding one—we shall give over control of interest rates, our central bank, any European central bank, and our exchange rates, levels of borrowing and money supply. What can we take back out of that lot?

Dr. Cunningham: We have had those debates and discussions in the Chamber in the past few weeks. They have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and others at some length. I simply do not accept my hon. Friend's long list of assertions.
I have the feeling that this is a debate and vote which we might describe as a Group 4 Security vote. It is a "go as you please" vote. Regardless of the decisions of the party, many of my hon. Friends intend to make up their own mind how to vote. That is a matter for them. But speaking on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinet, and in support of the decisions of our party, let me say that we shall vote against the new clause in the Lobby tonight.

Sir Roger Moate: It is a bit rich for the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to refer to the way in which my hon. Friends changed their position on the Single European Act. We fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman has to leave but he should understand that the Labour party and its Front-Bench team have turned so many somersaults on the European issue and now they proclaim—to my deep regret—that they are convinced and passionate Europeans. They have opposed virtually every piece of European legislation for the past 25 years.
For the right hon. Member for Copeland, who has just left the Chamber, to attack the principle of a referendum when he voted for one in 1975 is extraordinary. I wish that he had stayed in the Chamber long enough to explain how he could argue so passionately against it today when he voted in favour of it in 1975. He was then a young Member, and no doubt ambitious—it did not get him far, as he is still in opposition. Doubtless the same can be asked of other Members in the Labour Front-Bench team—why are they against a referendum today, when they were for it in 1975? The deputy leader of the Labour party, no less, was the Whip on that occasion, rightly voting in support of a referendum to allow the British people a say.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I voted against membership of the Common Market in 1975, and times have moved on considerably since then. However, the question then being asked was different. The European Single Act, which was pushed through the House on a


guillotine, gave away some of the powers that Conservative Members are now complaining about. They did nothing about it then.

Mr. Duncan-Smith: rose—

Sir Roger Moate: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith).

Mr. Duncan-Smith: The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has just left the Chamber, made an intriguing statement, which lies at the core of the issue. He said that nothing was irrevocable. There is a good example of why that statement is wrong and why the whole argument about how irrevocable the treaty is, as it binds one Parliament to another. In 1977, under the then Labour Administration, the acquired rights directive, now referred to as the transfer of undertakings, was initiated. Since then, we have had Conservative Administrations, and during that time there have been rulings in the European Court of Justice that have gradually changed the meaning of that directive, so that the present Government have had to introduce legislation to change the directive as it affected our right to decide whether or not certain local councils should have to take on the rights of employees. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend has given a good illustration of creeping irrevocability. We are not necessarily talking about whether something is irrevocable or not, but whether it is intended that it should be for ever. When the original treaty of Rome was signed and when the Maastricht treaty is signed—and those who subscribe to it say that we should move to common defence and foreign policies—the clear, honest and open intention will be to transfer power to another forum on a permanent basis.
The proposition is simple—if Parliament is contemplating such a move, in the unique circumstances of a transfer of power with the intention that it should be irrevocable, Parliament should ask the permission of those that elected its Members. We talk about a sovereign Parliament, but really we mean the sovereignty of the people in Parliament. We in this Parliament have no rights to transfer or to intend to transfer irrevocably those powers to another organisation without gaining the electorate's authority. That is a simple concept, which seems to be gaining acceptance if one considers the precedents to which I shall refer later.
I must tell the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that it was that motivation that lay behind the Labour Government's introduction of a referendum in 1975. The principle was right then, and I believe that there are overwhelming arguments for it to be adopted again. There is a stronger argument for the Labour party to advocate a referendum than the Conservative party. The Labour party's official position goes far beyond that adopted by the Government. The Labour party advocates the acceptance of a single currency—the ultimate expression of the ambitions of a single state. If that is not an issue that should be put to the British people, I do not know what is.
8.45 pm
I am extremely disappointed that the Government are against a referendum, but it is not surprising, because Governments are seldom in the business of erecting obstacles to their own plans and legislation. It is not surprising that they should reject the idea of volunteering a referendum. President de Gaulle did so and we saw the consequences for him; President Mitterrand did so and he nearly came a cropper. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Government have not voluntarily erected that obstacle.
But whatever the Labour party's views on the issue, I strongly argue that it is the Labour party that is betraying the British people by not sticking to the principle that it espoused in 1975. I shall return to that issue, as it involves a fundamental duty of the Opposition. If the Labour party were espousing the referendum today—which I believe the British people want and demand—there would be an overwhelming coalition for it in the House. It is very much the failure of the Labour party's Front Bench team to endorse a referendum that is depriving the British people of their right to vote on the issue, which is a matter of regret to me.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary advanced an argument in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills quoted precedents. As on other occasions, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary challenged a referendum as the right constitutional formula. He said that it was not Conservative, and it undermined parliamentary sovereignty.
However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not challenge the precedent quoted by my hon. Friend, which is of the utmost importance—perhaps he will do so later. That precedent was the introduction of the Northern Ireland border poll by a Conservative Government in the 1970s. That was a firm, cast-iron precedent—it was a referendum introduced by a Conservative Government on a matter involving the future powers and sovereignty of a part of the United Kingdom. However, it was not simply introduced into our constitution; it has become as entrenched a part of our constitution as anything can be.
Every time a Cabinet Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise, he reaffirms his belief in the principle of a referendum and in the fact that the people of Northern Ireland, whenever it is necessary and required, will have the right to determine their future. I urge my right hon. Friends, whatever their dislike of referendums and whatever their tactical objections, to reconsider the principles that they say underline their case.

Mr. Winnick: Surely the position is unlike that in 1975, when most of the press—the tabloids and the serious press —were in favour of a yes vote, and the Government and the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal party were all urging the electorate to vote yes. Now, is it not true that the two Front-Bench teams do not want a referendum because they cannot assume that they would win? If they thought otherwise and believed that victory was possible, they might be in favour of it. I do not underestimate the position, but the circumstances are different from those in


1975 and I believe that the Front-Bench teams do not want to put the issue to the British people as they fear losing a referendum on it.

Sir Roger Moate: One can advance any motivations. I do not necessarily believe that that is the Government's motivation. Having met enough obstacles to halt the ratification of the treaty, even if they felt inclined to hold a referendum—which they clearly do not—the Government would probably view a referendum as providing more evidence to our European partners of our weakening resolve, and would pose another obstacle to and damage the British position.

Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend not notice a common thread running through the argument about a referendum? It is all right to let the people of Northern Ireland have a referendum as they are the Northern Irish, it is all right to let the Scots have a referendum as they are the Scots, but it is not right for the United Kingdom to have a referendum. It is interesting that the Labour party is currently calling for a referendum on constitutional matters affecting Scotland, yet the Bill goes right to the heart of the constitutional rights of the Scottish people as achieved in the 1706 Act of Scottish Parliament which became the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Sir Roger Moate: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of regret that we are arguing with our own Front Bench and with the Conservative party position. There is a great deal to be gained in our constitutional arrangements by accepting the principle of the referendum on great constitutional issues. It is a matter of regret, because we have begun to accept it in practice, yet we argue against it in principle.
We have had referendums in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. That is quite a lot of referendums in a short space of history, yet here we are arguing against the referendum as though it were an alien device that we must resist. It is a simple proposition—this answers an earlier intervention about animal rights.
We are talking about great constitutional issues, and. as we do not have a written constitution and a supreme court to refer to, the only ultimate authority that Parliament can have is the people. It is a simple proposition, and we should accept it.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government understood the gravity and the importance of the subject by granting a paving debate, in the Prime Minister's words, so that the House could express an opinion? It was granted in the summer, but when the debate took place in November, there was heavy whipping —my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-west (Mr. Budgen) was talking about the pressures of it—and the Conservative party made it almost a personal vote of confidence in the Prime Minister. There were all sorts of shenanigans, and there was no way that it was an opportunity for free expression, certainly not among Conservative Members and possibly not among Opposition Members either.
Had that debate been a genuine paving debate, and had hon. Members on both sides of the House been allowed to express the opinions of their constituents and themselves without party whipping, we may not have been in the position we are in today.

Sir Roger Moate: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, because many people feel strongly enough about issues of such profound importance not to accept the ruthless whipping that he described. Nor do I accept that the vote to which he referred had much to do with the Maastricht treaty. It had very little to do with the Maastricht treaty. Ultimately, we are talking not about the whipping system but about the principle of a referendum.
Let me return to the precedents. We have the precedents of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and we have the 1975 European Community referendum. However, there are other precedents which I would ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to consider, because he and others say constantly that the referendum undermines the principle of parliamentary sovereignity. If that is so, is he saying that the Northern Ireland referendum, the border poll and its permanency in our present constitutional arrangements undermine the authority of this Parliament? If he is not, I hope that he will change his position. Is he saying that other Conservative Prime Ministers in the past who have advocated referendums were also undermining that great Conservative principle?
Sir Philip Goodhart, in his book on referendums, quoted five out of nine Conservative Prime Ministers who had advocated the use of the referendum. It is six out of 10 now that Lady Thatcher has become a staunch advocate of the referendum, so we are doing quite well. Is my right hon. Friend saying that, when Mr. Churchill advocated a referendum for the extension of Parliament or union with France, he was undermining parliamentary democracy? Is he saying that Mr. Balfour and Bonar Law were undermining parliamentary democracy by supporting the use of a referendum?
My right hon. Friend is not arrogant, but it would be arrogant to assume that somehow, in the 1990s, we have become the great defenders of parliamentary democracy and sovereignty against such a distinguished list of Conservative Prime Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who introduced such a measure into our constitution in the 1970s.
If the answer is that the referendum has now become an acceptable constitutional arrangement, then there is an overwhelming case now for a vote on a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.
My last point is fundamental. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his first intervention that there was an argument for a referendum in 1975 on the treaty of Rome, as that was when the major decision was taken; but we are now talking about what is in effect a refinement, and I believe that this is the time for such a vote. To pretend that it is a refinement is putting quite a gloss on it.
I accept that, from the perspective of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, the Maastricht treaty might be a refinement; it might be a step away from European union. That is one interpretation, but it is certainly not the interpretation of the Labour party. If, through some mischance—these things do happen—the Opposition were suddenly to be in Whitehall and Downing street, they would be strong advocates of a single currency and would take measures to move towards it, and they would use the Maastricht treaty as a platform.
Whatever our agenda is, and it is a good agenda, none the less the European Commission, Mr. Delors and Mr. Mitterrand have their own agenda. When the Maastricht treaty is ratified, they have every ambition to go on to


economic union and the single defence policy. All those things are possible, and we cannot know which will happen.
We do not know whether the Maastricht treaty means a great deal or very little. Many of my hon. Friends are trooping through the Lobby saying, "Why are you worried? It's a dead duck." One of my hon. Friends said to me, "I am voting holding my nose, believing that it will not happen," and he might be right.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Roger Moate: When I have finished this point.
Many European leaders believe Maastricht to be the launching pad for the next stage of European union, leading ultimately to federalism. That is their ambition. The fact that we do not know, it could go one way or the other, does not mean that the British people should not have the right to choose—because one thing is certain: in years to come, if we move in the direction that many of us, and the Government, are resisting, we will be told that we voted for the Maastricht treaty, so we must accept the consequences.
How many people here in the past few months have been asked why, if they do not believe in this treaty, they voted for the Single European Act? They may have been dragooned through the Lobby or persuaded by arguments of party loyalty—quite proper arguments, incidentally—but then their votes have been thrown back at them, just as such arguments would be thrown back at us.

Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that our own Government have given no assurances that they will not seek to move to the third stage of monetary union or, in the shorter term, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism? Their agenda is therefore open to question.

9 pm

Sir Roger Moate: I do not question the Government's agenda on this issue. My hon. Friends will not agree with me, but I believe that the direction set out by the Prime Minister offers us more than any other—certainly more than would be offered by the Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen, with their wholehearted commitment to European union, and more than most of our European partners would offer. Excluding the single currency or opting out of the commitment excluding the social chapter, and being determined to expand and enlarge the Community—all these moves offer a proper way forward. We do not know, however, whether the Government will have the power, faced with a great number of other forces, to deliver these objectives. I do know that the Maastricht treaty, good, bad, or indifferent, is a major treaty and is perceived as such by the people of this country.
The intention behind the treaty is expressed in its terrifying preamble, which sets out the ambitions of the federalists. Those ambitions have been nurtured for 30 years; they will not go away just because of the recession in Europe—they will reassert themselves. That is why we need a referendum. The Labour party could have helped us to deliver one, but it will not. So probably we will not get one, even though I will vote for it. Perhaps the House of Lords will, too.
If there is an argument for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, there will be an even more powerful argument for a referendum on the single currency, because that would be the ultimate and irrevocable step that would take Britain into a federal united states of Europe. That federalist ambition still exists. I am disappointed that the Government have not perceived that this was an opportunity to get the endorsement of the British people for their decision, one way or the other. That would have been to their credit. It would have helped this Parliament politically, and above all it would have been right.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I am glad that new clause 49 has been selected for debate and Division. That assures us that the Committee will at least have the opportunity to vote on this important issue—a chance which was in doubt for some time.
Many of those present have spent long hours in the Committee debating the important issues surrounding the treaty of Maastricht, not just because we wish to inform ourselves of the arguments but because we sought to use the Chamber for its traditional and proper purpose: as a sounding board from which the great issues could be taken out of public debate in the country at large.
Notwithstanding the efforts we have made and the hours we have spent, however, we have been at best only partly successful. I believe that the British people are still only dimly aware of some of the issues that we in the Committee have rightly concluded are of great importance.
That partial failure has not come about by accident. It has arisen because some of our leading politicians have tried to ensure that the issues are not publicly debated. They tried to ensure that at the time of the general election. They have now tried to ensure it, with the aid of other parties, by holding debates such as this important one very late at night. They have then tried to be satisfied, unfortunately with the co-operation of many members of the press, that those journalists will have gone home by the time many of the important issues are debated.
These leading politicians have peddled the idea—we heard the Foreign Secretary at it again today—that nothing of great importance is happening, that these are minor incremental changes that follow on inexorably from what has been decided. No one, they say, should get worked up about them. Behind it all there is the constant refrain, the constant briefing of the press, the constant undermining of those who believe these issues to be important, to the effect that these are arcane issues of interest only to obsessives and fanatics. We are given to understand—how often we have heard this point made —that these matters are taking up time that would be better spent on more important subjects. That is the context in which we as Members of Parliament have tried to deal with these important issues.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman, in his reasonable tone of voice, is talking nonsense. These are crucially important issues and they are being discussed where they ought to be discussed. At the general election, I tried over and over again, as perhaps other right hon. and hon. Members did, too, to talk about these things. I did talk about them, but they were not considered of great moment by the press, presumably because there was no great battle between the parties. But the effort was made, certainly by me and by the Prime Minister, to bring these matters to the fore.
We come to the debate. It is bizarre of the hon. Gentleman to say that we are holding the debate out of prime time because of some conspiracy by the Government. The authors of that discomfiture are much closer to the hon. Gentleman than I am. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his hon. Friends are largely responsible for that accident, if it is an accident. It has nothing to do with us.
I have taken part in only one or two of the debates on the Bill, but I have read the others. The quality of debate has been much higher than the reports of those debates suggest. The debates on subsidiarity and common foreign and security policy—to name the ones in which I took part —have been of high quality. Parliament has been doing its job. There has been no conspiracy of silence. The press has been more interested in the manoeuvres and comings and goings, but the hon. Gentleman must acquit the Government of any attempt to conceal the issues or deny that they are important. They are very important, and this is the place where they should be decided.

Mr. Gould: The Foreign Secretary may have spoken in his intervention for longer than I have managed in my speech. I was prepared to let him go on because it was interesting and heartening to have what I took to be his assurance that a vote on this central issue will not be conducted after 10 pm. Notwithstanding the length of his earlier intervention, I invite the Foreign Secretary to rise again to give the assurance that no attempt will be made to move the business motion at 10 o'clock. Will he give us that assurance?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly not; it does not follow in any way from what I said.

Mr. Gould: The Foreign Secretary concedes immediately my point that these matters are being debated and decided late at night when virtually no one, with one or two honourable exceptions, is present in the Press Gallery.
Following the painful admission that we have not succeeded in getting these issues into the public domain, let me say something more hopeful. Despite that, somehow, in a way which should give us confidence in our democracy, the people have got wind of the fact that something is amiss. The Foreign Secretary confirmed again that because there was no battle between the parties —he meant the Front Benches—the issue was not discussed during the election. He conceded as much in his intervention. Despite that, the people know that something is wrong.
The people have shown that they understand that the treaty of Maastricht is important and that it would be an outrage for a decision to be taken on it without their being asked their opinion. That is the meaning of the opinion polls, the 73 per cent. and the vote by the Scottish TUC today. That is the meaning of every expression of opinion that I have had the privilege of encountering. I speculate whether any hon. Member can point to an expression of opinion which supports the Maastricht treaty and denies the case for a referendum.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Labour Front Bench accuse me of offering a false perspective in the amendment which we have tabled to his new clause 49. With his experience of Parliament, he will know that that is not the case, because the procedure is that if his new clause is carried, the Chairman of Ways and

Means will decide whether to call the amendment. Whether that amendment is called and regardless of the result, there would be a further vote on the new clause to decide whether to incorporate it in the Bill. Therefore, those of us who believe in the social chapter in no way depend on the good will of people who do not to force it into the referendum amendment. If that is the reasoning of Labour Front-Bench speakers, they are on weak ground.

Mr. Gould: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is exactly right. If the Committee supports the new clause, I hope that it will support the amendment, because that would meet the stated objectives of my Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. George Galloway: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of the test of opinion, will he comment on today's extraordinarily important decision by the Scottish TUC in Glasgow? Labour Front-Bench spokesmen made much of the Labour conference decision taken seven months ago or more on an emergency resolution after half an hour's debate and only eight speakers. Not a single constituency Labour party or trade union had discussed the matter before casting their votes. Today in Glasgow the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which is no revolutionary band, the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association, and union after union led by their general secretaries, presidents and national executives—because, as my hon. Friend knows, those votes are cast not by some Scottish adjunct of the trade union movement but by the very centre of power in those unions—cast their votes. Does my hon. Friend agree that that marks a seismic shift in the Labour movement's opinion on the subject?

Mr. Gould: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's powerful point. It simply confirms what many of us have argued on many occasions—that decisions taken even seven, nine or 12 months ago simply cannot be said to hold for ever. That is certainly true of the decisions taken in the Labour movement.
I invite hon. Members to consider another expression of public opinion. I doubt whether there is a single hon. Member who has not found in his or her mailbag over recent weeks and months a rising tide of concern expressed in letters from constituents. They ask, "What is the Maastricht treaty about? Will it really deny us our democratic rights of self government? Should we not have a referendum?" Those are important expressions of opinion and few hon. Members will have failed to notice that that is what their constituents are saying.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the events of 16 September also completely changed the debate? The ERM was meant to be the necessary preliminary to a single currency. The British people cannot be expected all the time to consider arcane arguments about the difference between fixed and floating exchange rates. However, on a pragmatic basis, they are surely entitled to say, "The Government's whole economic policy burst apart on 16 September. It is based upon our implementing the Maastricht treaty. Are we not entitled to think again?"

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right. In addition to events on 16 September, there was also the Danish referendum on, I think, 6 June. Many events in the past year or so have demonstrated that the Maastricht treaty is


a document from another age, that it was drawn up for a quite different Europe and that it was the concept, the brain-child, of an elitist group of politicians who had their own private view of what Europe's future might be and did not bother to ask anybody else whether that view was shared.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the wonderful initiative by the Scottish TUC and by our constituents, there was a similar wonderful initiative within the Conservative party? Does he know that the national conference of young Conservatives, which was held in Southend-on-Sea, overwhelmingly rejected a motion supporting the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Gould: I am glad to have that piece of intelligence as well, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I rate it slightly lower in order of importance than the decision by the Scottish TUC.
What sort of resistance is put up by those who oppose a referendum to the popular pressure that is now manifesting itself? What arguments are used by these upholders of our constitution and our democracy?
The first argument, which is hardly to be found on the lips of any true democrat, is that the Maastricht treaty raises issues that are too difficult for the British people to comprehend. That is not only anti-democratic but peculiarly offensive to the British people. What reason is there to suppose that they are any more stupid than the French, the Danes or the Irish?
9.15 pm
Then there is the refinement of that argument, which is that the British people do not know enough about the issues, and therefore it would be unfair to hold a referendum. Even some of those who are most concerned about the treaty have written to me to say that they are worried about a referendum because they are not certain that they understand the issues. Whose fault is that but the Government's? They held a general election and pushed through a Second Reading of the Bill without publishing the text of the treaty in English and they have still failed to publish a complete text of what is, in effect, our first major comprehensive written constitution.
If people are serious about trying to inform the British people about the issues, there is one certain way to guarantee that the issues will be brought out, debated and, at least to a reasonable degree, made familiar to the British people. It is to have a referendum. I have no doubt that, like many others, the Foreign Secretary, anxious as he was during the last general electition to ventilate the issues but failing, as even he would concede, would leap at the chance to express his views about the great advantages of the Maastricht treaty.
So far, our leading politicians have not been assiduous in taking the argument into the public domain. I read in today's press that the Prime Minister will speak at a series of public meetings on the issue. That will be a welcome first. I hope that those who are keen to develop the arguments—on a soapbox or otherwise—will support the case for a referendum.
There is then the argument, which is a little more subtle than those arguments that are so offensive to British democracy, and which I have seen expressed in letters to constituents and elsewhere, to the effect that these matters

can safely be left to Parliament. That means, safely left to a Parliament that has been elected without considering in the process of that election whether the issues were important or should be supported, a Parliament where the Whips dictate the votes of most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, a Parliament that regularly truncates debates after two or three hours, using closure motions, a Parliament that, with all respect to you, Mr. Morris, fails mysteriously and confusingly to find a way to enable itself to vote on one of the few meaningful issues, a Parliament where the Government have made it clear that, whatever the results of the votes on those important issues, they will ignore them and will go ahead to ratify the treaty whatever the outcome, a Parliament in which the Labour party Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have tacitly agreed to ease the passage of the Bill.

Mr. George Robertson: No.

Mr. Gould: Perhaps not tacitly. Perhaps my hon. Friend objects to that word. I thought—I could have sworn—that I had heard in the House, in the Committee and in the parliamentary Labour party repeated statements from the leaders of my party that they would do nothing to frustrate the passage of the Bill. I have not so far used the word conspiracy and I understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends might be sensitive about the use of that term, but if one takes as a reasonable definition of "conspiracy" that it is an agreement that is tacit, perhaps unstated, to act in concert for nefarious purposes, we might be looking at a conspiracy.

Mr. George Robertson: Perhaps I should not rise so easily to the bait. I have not yet been a member of the national executive of the Labour party and I have not yet been, and may never be, a member of the shadow Cabinet, but my hon. Friend was a member of both those organisations up to the party's annual conference last year. He was there in those ruling bodies of the party as the party's policy on Europe evolved. He therefore had a much more instrumental role than many of us.
When we made it clear that we were not interested in wrecking the Maastricht treaty because our annual conference had laid down that policy last year, it should be understood that my hon. Friend was at that conference. We decided that we should use parliamentary means to secure the social chapter. In other words, we were intent on using Parliament for its primary purpose of ensuring that the issues were debated properly. Surely that must be a reasonable approach for someone who has occupied high positions in the party over many years. Surely it is reasonable and honourable and not a tacit admission of anything other than that we shall conduct the Labour party in the way in which the party has always been conducted.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend may be unduly sensitive. It seems that his intervention does nothing more than confirm my argument. Indeed, he goes further and rightly says that the position taken by those on the Opposition Front Bench is explicit and not tacit. The two Front Benches, deliberately or consciously, find themselves acting in concert. That is relevant to the argument that it is unnecessary or wrong to have a referendum because Parliament is able to decide the issue. Given that the two


Front Benches are agreed and will Whip their respective followers, surely Parliament is not free to decide these issues in the way proposed.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is describing a parliamentary world of which I know nothing. I live in hope of change, but so far the Opposition Front Bench has been unfailingly difficult and obstructive.

Mr. Gould: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have managed to convey that impression. It is remarkable, however, that when there are Divisions that matter, even on Labour amendments, we, the Opposition, fail to embarrass the Government by defeating them and preventing them from ratifying the treaty.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there is collective responsibility, in which he played a part, it is honourable that when someone can no longer discharge that corporate responsibility he makes his position clear, as my hon. Friend did at a meeting at Blackpool, when I was sitting next to him?
The relevant conference resolution did not endorse the Maastricht treaty. It described the terms, probably with accuracy, as the best available. It did not endorse acceptance of them. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench say that they will not support—they had every right to make this judgment—any amendment that would threaten the treaty. Against that background, are not the two Front Benches, despite the impression of the Foreign Secretary, much more at one on the issue than the public might think?

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has the position bang to rights.
I do not want to offend the Liberals because I gather that they support new clause 49—well, I hope that that is the case. The Liberals, however, also have their disreputable role to play, as do some other minority parties, in frustrating the ability of Parliament to deal properly with the issues that are before us. They, too, do their deals with the Government Front Bench. It is—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] There are denials. I am glad to know that, even if the Government were foolish enough to seek to suspend the 10 o'clock business motion, the Liberals would have nothing to do with that. I am sure that they will stick to their principles of open government and ensure that these important matters are debated before the full gaze of the British people as relayed to them by, now, a virtually empty Press Gallery.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; at least, I should feel grateful, because he deals with Liberal Democrats in a much more measured way than he deals with his own Front Bench.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the cause of parliamentary reform, which my party supports. We want to discuss serious issues at sensible times of day, in a sensible fashion, but current parliamentary procedure does not allow that. Let me add that—as I shall make clear if I am fortunate enough to be called to speak—I shall vote for a referendum. I find no difficulty in trying to aid the Bill's progress so that we can reach a decision about the referendum; I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to persuade his party to back the idea.
The arithmetic suggests that, if Labour, the Liberal Democrats and certain Conservatives backed it, we would have a referendum.

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his support in regard to the referendum. I only hope that he will be able to put into practice his principles on the first point that he made. That test may well come at 10 pm; we shall watch carefully.
At the heart of the argument of those who oppose a referendum—I mean the serious argument; the rest has been marginal—is the proposition that it would be contrary, damaging and inimical to our constitution. The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said enough about the precedents to demonstrate that that is nonsense. Those precedents have been coming thick and fast over recent years: we need only look at the writings of A. V. Dicey, the great apostle or high priest of parliamentary sovereignty. Even he argued in favour of referendums as the appropriate response to particular circumstances.
What are those circumstances? Is it not an irony that those who pray in aid the constitution are the very people who are most intent on subverting and damaging that constitution? In my view, not only is our constitution entirely compatible with a referendum on this issue; it demands such a referendum. Even the greatest supporter of parliamentary sovereignty—Dicey, perhaps—must concede, as a matter of logic, that however powerful Parliament is, certain rules have priority over those of Parliament.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I am sorry; I am in the middle of an argument.
If Parliament did not have such rules, we could not know what Parliament is. Rules about Parliament's composition, identity, functions and procedures must logically have priority; for that reason, they cannot depend on Parliament itself, because Parliament preaches them.
What, then, is the authority that lies behind those rules? Let me use a term invented by the German jurist Hans Kelsen: in each society, state and political entity there is what he described as a Grundnorm—a basic norm. In any democracy worthy of the name, that basic norm must be the will of the people. It is the will of the people which defines and gives authority to Parliament. Parliament may purport to change the rules that define it—to change its mode of operation, and the processes of government and self-government—but it simply has not the authority to go back and change rules which, as I have said, are logically prior to Parliament. Only the will of the people can make such a fundamental change in the way in which we govern ourselves.
So far, what I have said is a matter of incontrovertible legal and constitutional theory. The real question that now arises is whether the Maastricht treaty poses an issue of such fundamental importance that to accept the change involved would be to redefine fundamentally both Parliament and the way in which we govern ourselves. The treaty of Maastricht is not, in my view, just an incremental change. It is a fully-fledged statement of a written constitution for a new state. It is not I who say so; it is the drafters of the treaty who proclaim that they hereby establish a European union, of which we are all to be citizens.
That union, if we examine it, has, as I said in an earlier debate, all the trappings of a state. It has its own head of state, chief executive, legislature, civil service, bank, foreign representation, defined boundaries and territories and its own economic, agricultural, industrial and trade policies. Above all, it has its own constitution and supreme constitutional court, which sees its function as being to interpret, develop and protect that constitution. We delude ourselves if we pretend otherwise. Even the term "federal" is inadequate to describe what is laid down in the treaty of Maastricht. It may be good, or it may be bad, but that is what it is.
9.30 pm
Let us take a particular example of a very important power of self-government—the power of a democratic electorate in this country to decide what should or should not be the economic policy applied by the Government of this country. Under the treaty of Maastricht, the most important powers over economic policy are ceded to a central bank which is told, in terms, to take no notice of any other institution, and certainly not of any elected Government. That change, of such importance and centrality, is, as so many hon. Members have said, meant to be irreversible. That is what the treaty says.
It is irreversible in the sense, contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said an hour or so ago, that if the Labour party could persuade the British electorate at the next general election, once the treaty is in force, to elect a Labour Government committed to a different economic policy from that laid down by the European central bank, we should have to say to the electorate on the morning after that election, "We're very sorry, but we can't implement a different economic policy. That matter is beyond political debate and action within this country. It is now a matter for the European central bank." Unless we could persuade each of our 11 partners to change that policy in some respects, it would be beyond our unilateral action to change it.
What answer is given to that argument by those who oppose a referendum? Fundamentally, what I think they say, since they cannot, in the end, deny the black and white provisions of the treaty, is that it does not really matter, that these issues are of concern only to a lot of fuddy-duddies who are preoccupied with antiquated concepts such as sovereignty and who love the word "sovereignty" because it has a wonderful 19th century ring about it. It may be easy to sneer at the word "sovereignty", but it is not so easy to sneer at the words "democracy" and "self-government". Those are the issues, those are the words, those are the terms which are truly involved in this debate.
What an astonishment it is to discover that it is in this House of Commons, of all institutions, that the view is expressed that these are matters of little consequence and that it is in this House of Commons that there is such a fundamental misunderstanding of what these issues really mean. That is the view which is taken in a Parliament which, in its history, traditions and function, is the very symbol of our nationhood, the very mechanism by which we subject to democratic control the power of the Executive, and which is the very instrument by which we define that self which we talk of self-government.
Democracy is not just a matter of mechanisms, or of elections to this, that or the other body. Democracy is a form of self-government. To say, "Well, we can give up the powers of self-government which we exercise, because we shall have elections to a European Parliament" does not meet the point, if the self with which the British people identify is the British self rather than a European self.
Each of us, in our various ways, reaches this place in many cases as a result of great effort. We naturally feel very pleased with ourselves when we get here. It is a privilege to serve in the House of Commons. Merely to be here is a reward in itself, but getting here is not only a matter of self-congratulations, of taking the plaudits and enjoying the benefits. To come to the House is surely also to acknowledge and accept responsibilities, responsibilities not only to the Whips, to one's local paper or one's personal ambition but to what the House represents in our history and government.
If we, as elected politicians, fail to understand that, if we turn our backs on those responsibilities through complacency, arrogance or ignorance, or if we get the political process wrong, we leave the people no alternative: they will have to get it right. They are chilling words. When one looks around the world and sees the vast majority of people who do not enjoy the benefits of democratic self-government, which we now so carelessly propose to give away, and the lengths to which they are prepared to go to get it right, we learn that, at the very least, it can be a messy, confusing and unattractive process.
I hope that when the time comes to vote on new clause 49, enough people—I wish there were more here now—will recognise their responsibilities to this country, to this institution and to the people who elect us. That is the case for a referendum, and that is why we shall press new clause 49 to a Division.

Sir Terence Higgins: It is extraordinary and immensely sad that those who have been arguing hardest and at the greatest length that the Maastricht treaty and the Bill will reduce the power and influence of our Parliament are now resorting to the use of a device that I believe strikes far more fundamentally at the powers and responsibilities of this House in order to achieve their objective of defeating the Bill and preventing ratification of the treaty.
If we continue to add to the unfortunate precedents —referendums have not as yet been that numerous—we shall inevitably undermine our system of representative parliamentar democracy. I stress the word "representative". We all know of Edmund Burke's famous dictum that we are sent here as representatives, not delegates. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who moved the new clause but who is no longer here was a little too fair to Edmund Burke who made the speech containing that dictum to the Bristol electors after he had just been elected, not before. At every election in which I have stood, I have strongly put forward that view. I stand for election to come to this place as a representative, not as a delegate.
The referendum is the exact antithesis of that concept. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills spoke as if the referendum rather than the system of representative democracy was the norm. That is quite untrue. I speak with a much passion as he did. I believe strongly that we must defend that representative system. I am not sent here as a computer—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sir Terence Higgins: No, I shall not give way now. I may do so a little later.
I am not sent here as a computer to vote as I would if I knew what the majority of my constituents believed was right on a particular issue. We all have a far more difficult task than that. Our task is to listen to our constituents, to take into account the views that they express, to study matters, whatever they may be, as profoundly as we can, to listen to the debates in the Chamber, and then to vote as our constituents would vote if they had had all those advantages.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: I may give way later, but not now.
I believe that that is our fundamental task. It is immensely difficult. It is also important that we should vote not simply in the interests of our constituents in that sense, but in the interests of the country as a whole. One crucial difference between a system of representative democracy and a system of referendums is that minority interests can be taken into account in a representative democracy. In a real sense a system of referendums represents the dictatorship of the majority—that is important in terms of race or whatever other interest groups may be affected.
It is right that we should deal with the fundamental principle of referendums in the debate because if further precedent is set the principle of representative democracy will be undermined. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is stuck with a piece of jargon—"Trust the people." Yes, of course it is important that we should trust our constituents, but our duty is to trust that they will express their views to us on how we should vote on an issue, but our decision is based not simply on numbers, but on the arguments. It is important that we should listen to our constituents, but then—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Sir Terence Higgins: I have made it clear to my hon. Friend that I may give way later, but not now.
It is important that we take into account the arguments that our constituents put to us, and that we in turn advance the views that we may have, which might emanate from the House of Commons. That is a difficult and complex task that we must undertake. That is the sense in which we should trust the people.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who was not prepared to give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that it was arrogant to say that we shall take a view which may differ from that of our constituents, but in my view we must weigh their arguments. That is important if one is to be an effective Member of Parliament.
I have not heard many arguments from my constituents about the Maastricht treaty. The problem has been rather that I have had to explain the treaty to them. I have done so, at great length throughout the election campaign, at numerous public meetings. I have had a video made explaining the arguments, and so on—

Mr. Cash: I would like to see that.

Sir Terence Higgins: I shall be happy to lend my video to my hon. Friend. It is important that we have that to-and-fro strength of argument; that two-way flow of ideas.
A referendum is a totally crude and different way of approaching an issue. We would be playing a pure numbers game, without taking into account the importance of the various arguments. That is what I believe is the fundamental difference between our representative system of democracy and the principle of a referendum.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: In just one moment.
The crucial question would be: what question would be posed in the referendum? There would have to be a crude question and a crude answer. We could be asked the simple question, "Do you deplore Delors?" I must admit that on that question I should be inclined to vote yes, but the gut reaction would be at an appallingly superficial level. It would certainly not take into account any of the arguments that we have had over 29 sitting days in the Committee.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that I am being facetious. I have watched my right hon. Friend very closely for a decade and I know that he is a very distinguished right hon. Member of Parliament who has honourably followed his arguments about the representative nature of our role in this place.
9.45 pm
However, surely the only way in which we can represent our constituents and express our mature judgment in their interests is if the Government exercise a certain degree of goodwill and generosity towards their supporters. That is particularly important when both the Opposition and Government Front Benches agree on a very important constitutional measure. If there were simply a crude and aggressive attitude towards the Back Benchers on either side of the House who disagree, it would appear that the whole House agreed with the measure. At the present time, we have not the respect for individual judgment, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) referred, but simply crude, aggressive and authoritarian behaviour towards those who disagree.

Sir Terence Higgins: I have had the pleasure over the years of serving on various Committees with my hon. Friend and I am always concerned when he makes complimentary remarks about me. He is really saying that when hon. Members seek to fulfil the duty that I sought to outline a moment ago—

Mr. Budgen: They are prevented from doing that.

Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend says that they are prevented from doing that. He really means that they are failing to carry out that duty.

Mr. Budgen: Some fail, some are prevented.

Sir Terence Higgins: It is no good saying that some are failing and some are prevented. Quite simply, my hon. Friend is arguing that the hon. Members who arc succumbing in the way that he has proposed—assuming that that is the reality of the position—are failing in their duty. I do not accept that that is true of hon. Members.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to learn that I agree with a great deal of what he has said, particularly about referendums. The question in 1975 might have been, "Do you believe Harold Wilson when he says that no law can be passed without the consent of a British Minister and that the threat of EMU has disappeared—yes or no?"
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the ground rules of democracy, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred a few moments ago, have been broken successively in the following respects: first, we were taken in over "negotiate no more, no less"; secondly, Baroness Thatcher agreed to European political union and EMU on the basis of a previous so-called pledge without any mandate from this House; and the present Prime Minister claims a mandate on a treaty that he had not published before the general election. All three have broken the ground rules suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and therefore some of us have nothing left but the device that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) criticises. However, at least it is a device that we can use.

Sir Terence Higgins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a device. Before I consider that device, I want to consider a point which, strangely, has not been mentioned in this debate, although it has been in other debates on referendums. I want to consider whether the referendum should be advisory or mandatory. In that respect, we run into some very difficult issues.
If the referendum is simply advisory, it is difficult to see how any new arguments could be advanced which we in this House have not, over many days, considered very carefully. If the referendum is mandatory, that would be a total betrayal of what we are sent here to do. We must consider whether the referendum must be advisory or mandatory and the hon. Member for Dagenham did not consider that point.

Mr. Gould: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: No, I will not as the hon. Gentleman would not give way to me.
The most absurd way of proceeding would be to sit for 29 days in Committee—and no doubt for longer on Report and thereafter—so that we are all convinced of what the outcome should be one way or the other and then have a referendum which reversed that decision. Will we then come back to the House and say, "We have considered it all clearly; we made up our minds; we debated it at immense length; the referendum went the other way and we will reverse the decision which we, exercising our judgment in the House of Commons, reached in the traditional way"?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Yes.

Sir Terence Higgins: If so, there is a big gulf between us as to our understanding of the democratic system in the House of Commons. I shall come to the point which was made a moment ago.

Mr. Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Terence Higgins: I will take up the point which was made in an intervention because I have not addressed it. I shall structure my remarks as best I can.
The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to the history of the matter and the way in which we have gone from the

original decision that was taken in 1972 through the further decisions and the passing of the Single European Act to the present stage. Earlier, I said that the referendum process, which was used by the Labour Government purely for political expediency, set further in concrete the decision that was made than would have been the case if we had not had the referendum. Paradoxically, those who advocated a referendum at that time, who then lost, have suffered considerably and have reduced the degree of flexibility with regard to subsequent events. We must not make the same mistake.
I shall take up the point that was made about Dicey. The hon. Member for Dagenham must look at different editions of Dicey if he wants to get the conclusion. Neither the first edition of Dicey nor the last was in favour of a referendum. The only editions which were in favour of a referendum were those in which he, for reason of political expediency, had decided to advocate it. I had to study Dicey at Cambridge. It was an unbelievable bore. Dicey has been given too much weight.

Mr. Budgen: He made a living out of it.

Sir Terence Higgins: The former right hon. Member for Finchley was keen on quoting Dicey. In her famous speech —one might almost say notorious—at the time of the 1975 referendum debate, she referred to the various editions of Dicey. I had forgotten that. When she was sitting next to me just before she went to the other place, she said, "It is all in Dicey". I said, "But you have got the wrong edition". She had forgotten her original speech.
My point is that those who advocate referendums—the plural of referendum is referendums—typically do so when they have lost the argument.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How did my right hon. Friend vote?

Sir Terence Higgins: I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), who put much stress on the Irish referendum. That example is somewhat different.

Sir Teddy Taylor: That is disgraceful.

Sir Terence Higgins: I think—[Interruption.] I am conscious of the fact that we are approaching the 10 o'clock motion. There is some distinction between—to use a piece of jargon—a plebescite and a referendum. On issues involving borders, there is a distinction. I have consistently voted against referendums, and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Ray Whitney: When my right hon. Friend referred to the question whether referendums—I agree with the plural—should be advisory or mandatory, is he aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is so much in favour of referendums—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not."] I misunderstood him. He made it clear that he would not be bound by referendums. I am delighted to know that he will be in the right Lobby tonight, for a change.

Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) must speak for himself. As I understand it, he has always been strongly against referendums. I trust that he will be consistent.
Many hon. Members are inconsistent about referendums. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are you"] No, I have made a


distinction on the Irish issue. That is a legitimate distinction. Except on that issue, I have consistently and will continue consistently to oppose referendums.
Back in 1975 the Labour Government, for reasons of expediency and divisions in the party, went ahead with a referendum, thereby creating a further dangerous precedent. The present Government should be congratulated on not going along with that approach. They have stuck to their guns on the issue. They have not been prepared to resort to a referendum to deal with any differences which may exist in the party.
If we examine the matter objectively, we see that there is a clear point of principle and that the House would be right to reject new clause 8. There has been some suggestion that even if the new clauses are defeated this evening, as I profoundly hope that they will, there might be more support for the idea of a referendum in the upper House. I am bound to say that it would be a dangerous action, when the elected House had rejected the idea of a referendum, for the other House to seek to reverse that decision. That would be the antithesis of what our system of representative democracy stands for. That is the basis on which I believe that all Members of Parliament have a duty to perform.

Mr. Salmond: I have every confident hope that I shall finish this speech in prime time tomorrow afternoon. I shall certainly vote against the 10 o'clock motion.
I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 49 and to advance some arguments why amendment (a) to that new clause on the social chapter should be properly considered by the House. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) argued that our view about referendums could be selective. He suggested that we could pick and choose what referendums we had. I believe that we must apply a consistent criterion when choosing issues on which referendums should be held. Surely that consistent criterion should be that referendums should be employed when major constitutional issues are at stake.
So the first question for us this evening is whether the Maastricht treaty is a major constitutional issue.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) clearly showed that there is a border between Scotland and England? Therefore, I imagine that he takes the view that, if there is to be a referendum on borders, that is one border which must certainly be considered.

Mr. Salmond: I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has recently discovered an enthusiasm for the concept of Scottish popular sovereignty. He rightly said a few days ago that, in 1707, the Scottish Parliament moved into adjournment. His point was well made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I agree with him only rarely, and I hope that he will take my remarks as a genuine compliment.
My point about the consistency of referendums is that we must decide whether Maastricht is a major constitutional issue. I know that the Government have attempted from time to time to say that Maastricht is not such an issue and that nothing much is at stake. To paraphrase them, they say, "It is all right, chaps—everything is going to turn out all right." But most of us

who look seriously at the content of the Bill and the treaty accept that major constitutional issues are obviously at stake in the Maastricht process.
Powers will be transferred to a central authority in the European Community, either now or in the foreseeable future. Many of us think that it a thoroughly good idea and are none too concerned about the dimunition of the powers of the House. But many other hon. Members think that it is a bad idea, and want jealously to protect what powers—real or imagined—the House possesses.
The point at issue in the debate is not whether the transfers of power are right or wrong, but whether the subject qualifies as one of the major constitutional issues that should properly be put to the people in a referendum.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: To follow on from the hon. Gentleman's argument, may I ask him why he thinks that there was not a referendum either on signing the treaty of Rome or on entering the single market?

Mr. Salmond: The argument has been advanced that perhaps there should have been, but there was a referendum on the European Community in 1975. There were referendums in Northern Ireland and Scotland—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 280.

Division No. 244]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Alton, David
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ancram, Michael
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Churchill, Mr


Aspinwall, Jack
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Coe, Sebastian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Booth, Hartley
Dafis, Cynog


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brandreth, Gyles
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan, Alan






Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Elletson, Harold
Kilfedder, Sir James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Faber, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fabricant, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn. Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclennan, Robert


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Madel, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Malone, Gerald


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hannam, Sir John
Milligan, Stephen


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hawkins, Nick
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heald, Oliver
Moss, Malcolm


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hendry, Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Horam, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pickles, Eric


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn





Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Tom
Tredinnick, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Trend, Michael


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tyler, Paul


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wallace, James


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Nicholas
Ward, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Watts, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sproat, Iain
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wigley, Dafydd


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson, Mark


Streeter, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Sykes, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M.(Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Temple-Morris, Peter
 Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Thomason, Roy



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Adams, Mrs Irene
Canavan, Dennis


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cash, William


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beggs, Roy
Connarty, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Bendall, Vivian
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Cran, James


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cryer, Bob


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cummings, John


Blair, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Boyce, Jimmy
Darling, Alistair


Boyes, Roland
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Budgen, Nicholas
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Burden, Richard
Denham, John


Butcher, John
Dewar, Donald


Byers, Stephen
Dixon, Don


Caborn, Richard
Dobson, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Donohoe, Brian H.


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Duncan-Smith, Iain






Dunnachie, Jimmy
McCartney, Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Ms Angela
McFall, John


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Enright, Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McLeish, Henry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McMaster, Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McNamara, Kevin


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Alice


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Marlow, Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)


Fyfe, Maria
Martlew, Eric


Galbraith, Sam
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


George, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Milburn, Alan


Gill, Christopher
Miller, Andrew


Godsitf, Roger
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gould, Bryan
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Gunnell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hain, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hardy, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Hara, Edward


Harvey, Nick
Olner, William


Henderson, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Parry, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Kate
Pickthall, Colin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Pope, Greg


Hood, Jimmy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Salmond, Alex


Knapman, Roger
Sedgemore, Brian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sheerman, Barry


Legg, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leighton, Ron
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)





Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Joan


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Spearing, Nigel
Watson, Mike


Spellar, John
Welsh, Andrew


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Wilkinson, John


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Rt Hon John D.(Strgfd)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wray, Jimmy


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony


Trimble, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Question accordingly agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Salmond: I can only take that vote as a vote of confidence in my speech. Clearly, hon. Members wanted to hear a great deal more, and could not wait until tomorrow for it. There are some advantages in having one's speech interrupted by the 10 o'clock motion, not least because one can hear the football results, albeit the result of the European Champions cup match was disappointing. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the score?"] Unfortunately, Glasgow Rangers are out of the competition.[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Salmond: I am sure, Mr. Lofthouse, that you will have interpreted the result of that match as a European issue, and agree that it is quite legitimate to mention it.[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Salmond: I notice that, when I speak about football scores, hon. Members hang on my every word. I understand that Rangers narrowly failed to qualify for the final of the European Champions cup.
On new clause 49, I had developed the argument that Maastricht was a major constitutional issue which, regardless of what hon. Members believe about the issue, could properly be regarded as major enough to be put to the people in a referendum. However, there are other specific arguments, because it must be clear that we have reached, to use a fashionable word, gridlock on several keys aspects of the Bill.
We are gridlocked because some hon. Members are pro-Maastricht and the social chapter. That belief encompasses the Liberal Democrats and the majority of the Labour party. Some people are pro-Maastricht but against the social chapter. That is the official view of the Conservatives. Some Labour Back Benchers are pro the social chapter but against the Maastricht treaty, and some people are against both.
That gridlocked combination of forces means that we are guaranteed no meaningful parliamentary vote on the critical subject of the social chapter. Therefore, the social chapter should also be put to the people in a consultative referendum. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 49. If rationale and logic have anything to do with the process of votes in the Committee, that should be an important development.
It has already been noted that the outcome of tonight's vote is in the hands of the Labour party. The arithmetic shows that, if Labour Members are united in voting for a referendum, the Government will lose the vote on new clause 49 by about 30 votes. Therefore, the matter is entirely in the hands of Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen.
Last Friday, 16 April, Labour's spokesman on Europe, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), wrote to me outlining his reasons for voting against a referendum on Maastricht. The letter states:
The Labour Party has made it clear on a number of occasions that it will oppose a Refendum on Maastricht for one principal and very good reason. A Referendum would involve a Yes/No question on the Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht Treaty provides for an opt out from the Social Chapter for the United Kingdom alone. A Yes/No question on the Maastricht Treaty would therefore not provide any opportunity for a reservation to be put forward in relation to the Social Chapter.
That was the
one principal and very good reason
for Labour not wishing to support the new clause on a referendum.
I put it to those on the Labour Front Bench that the difficulty can be reasonably resolved if they support amendment (a). If that is the one, principal and very good reason for not supporting the referendum new clause, that difficulty can be resolved and, hopefully, there can be some reconsideration.
Earlier on in the debate, the right hon. Member for Copeland—I nearly said for Sellafield—(Dr. Cunningham) argued that this was not the appropriate way forward, because the Labour party would be trusting the anti-Maastricht Conservative forces to vote the social chapter amendment on to the new clause. That argument displays a surprising ignorance of the procedures of the House of Commons.
All of us are familiar with "Erskine May", because we have looked at it from time to time. It shows that the procedures of the House of Commons are quite simple. If new clause 49 were to be carried, the Chairman of Ways and Means would take a decision as to whether to call a Division on amendment (a). Whether or not that amendment were voted on, and whether or not that vote were in favour, there would be a further vote and a decision on whether to incorporate new clause 49, amended or unamended, into the body of the treaty.
The danger that the right hon. Member for Copeland foresaw—that the Opposition could be conned into voting for a referendum and then find that they would have a referendum with no reference to the social chapter—is not a real danger. On the second vote on new clause 49, they could simply switch position if there were not support elsewhere for the amendment to incorporate a second question into new clause 49 to cover the social chapter. The Opposition Front-Bench team have nothing to fear about proceeding to a positive vote for a referendum and

putting us in the position of having the only real opportunity to make a decisive vote in favour of the social chapter that will be allowed to us.
On the same day that the hon. Member for Hamilton wrote to me explaining the Labour party's fears, I tabled amendment (a) in an attempt to solve that difficulty. However, in The Scotsman on Friday, I found that the hon. Member for Hamilton had decided that the amendments had no chance of being debated or accepted. We are debating them, and I am grateful that the Chairman of Ways and Means decides those matters and not the hon. Member for Hamilton. I hope that he will have a quick confab with his colleagues on the Front Bench and decide, in this new situation, whether the Labour party can support new clause 49, and then go on to vote for amendment (a), which would include a question on the social chapter in the referendum. Then, if we are let down by the anti-Maastricht Tories —I am sure that we would not be, given the expression of interest that I am seeing there—the Labour party can reverse its vote.
I was disappointed by another part of the article in The Scotsman. The hon. Member for Hamilton said that the SNP campaign for a referendum was "belated and last-minute". I find that surprising, because, between 2 October last year and 13 April this year, I have written no fewer than four times to the leader of the Labour party arguing the case for the referendum new clause. I have had no reply to my letters.
I can think of only one other issue in Scottish politics where the Leader of the Labour party—normally a courteous man—is as reticent. I will not develop the argument about local council affairs on Monklands district council. I find it surprising that, given that the leader of the Labour party has not answered four letters over that period, I can be told that this is a belated—

Mr. Allan Rogers: That is wrong.

Mr. Salmond: I have the four letters here, and I am willing to make them available in the Library, or to the hon. Gentleman. It is surprising that, having argued consistently over that period, I should be told that this is a belated and last-minute campaign. It most certainly is not.
I have reasonable hopes that the leader of the Labour party might be interested in the referendum new clause. It is not something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has consistently opposed throughout his political career. On the contrary, he has been on record several times arguing in favour of the referendum as a legitimate device in constitutional politics.
For example, there is the "Bulletin of Scottish Politics" of spring 1981. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was being questioned on a Scottish referendum on devolution, when he said:
I think another referendum (on devolution) is inevitable. Without one, there is no hope of getting any significant constitutional change through Parliament in a reasonable timescale. Also, given that we had to concede it once—albeit for tactical reasons—it would be difficult or impossible to refuse it on another occasion. I would add that this principle seems to apply in the case of the Common Market too. We have now definitely made referenda part of the constitutional equipment, and we have to stick by that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Even if the initiative taken by the Scottish National party was belated, pathetic and cynical, which some, rightly or wrongly, have said, will the hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear to the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench and to all Opposition Back-Bench Members, and to their trade union friends with whom they are associated, that if they really wanted to they could secure their wonderful social chapter tonight?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's words speak for themselves. As I have said, the Labour party does not have to trust the hon. Gentleman to vote for the social chapter in the form of amendment (a) to the new clause. If he did not, and the amendment was not agreed to following a Division, the Opposition would have the backstop option of not pressing new clause 49 in a subsequent Division. The Labour party is in a no-lose position if it is prepared to vote for new clause 49.
We hope for conversion in the next couple of hours or so. I hope that all Labour Members who are being urged to go home by the Opposition Whips so that only the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench are present for the embarrassment later this evening will be called back now that new arguments are being advanced. We live in hope that the arguments will have some importance in our proceedings as they are developed. We may—who knows? —have a chance later in our proceedings to develop the arguments further. There may be more time for the hon. Member for Hamilton to change his mind.

Mr. George Robertson: Many months ago, the hon. Gentleman tabled new clause 48, which states:
This Act shall not come into force until the House of Commons has expressed a view of the desirability of a referendum in each component nation of the United Kingdom with respect to the commencement of this Act.
Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) tabled an amendment to that new clause, in which he urged that there should be a specific question on the social chapter. How is it that, for about eight months, the new clause did not refer to the social chapter? It seems that the SNP has recently discovered the social chapter and is intent on making a greal deal of it. Its position has changed since Thursday.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should refer to his correspondence. On 16 April, he wrote to me and specified that there was
one principal and very good reason
for the Labour party not backing the referendum amendment or new clause. He believed, wrongly as it turned out—

Mr. Robertson: That is not the position.

Mr. Salmond: Presumably the hon. Gentleman has control over what he writes. He wrote that there was
one principal and very good reason,
but perhaps I was wrong to take him by such words. On 16 April, however, the hon. Gentleman—presumably he was speaking for the Labour party—identified his belief that it would not be possible to develop the social chapter argument as part of the referendum argument as the
principal and very good reason
for the Labour party not supporting the new clause on the referendum.
In our desire to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friends and I amended our new clause on the referendum. He must know that last week I had no way of knowing—presumably he had not—which new clause on a referendum would be accepted, so I took the precaution of amending all five. We now know, of course, that No. 49 was accepted.[Interruption,] The hon. Member for Hamilton says, from a sedentary position, that there are other reasons for Labour's not being prepared to support the new clause on the referendum. It is a pity that he did not mention them to me last week, but never mind. Let us consider what some of those "other reasons" might be.
I have heard other Labour Members say that a party conference decision last year must be respected. I read the speech made at the conference by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman); I remember it well, as a speech that was judged in relation to the particular time at which it was made. It was a very good speech. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman argued that the Maastricht Bill had perhaps been fatally wounded by the Danish referendum. He said that there was no way of knowing whether it would return to the Floor of the House. He asked why the Labour party should split itself internally over something that might never arise. Unfortunately, that argument has been overtaken by events; the question has now arisen, and it cannot be dodged.
At that time, the right hon. Member for Gorton had no way of realising that a head-on, meaningful vote on the social chapter would not be allowed during the passage of the Maastricht Bill. That surprised many hon. Members, and could not have been foreseen at the time of the Labour party conference.
There is substantial evidence, with the benefit of the information that we now have, that there is a substantial change of mind among large sections of the Labour movement. Already, we have heard how the Scottish Trades Union Congress—composed of exactly the same unions that composed the Trades Union Congress, which also voted, or at least advised, against a referendum last year—today voted overwhelmingly in favour of a referendum on Maastricht. I was not present myself, but I suspect that the arguments in favour of a referendum were similar to the arguments that we should deploy tonight.
The STUC would be frustrated by parliamentary processes not allowing a vote on the social chapter. It would be well aware that, since the general election, the Scottish Labour party has developed a policy on the constitutional question in favour of a referendum in Scotland—in favour, moreover, of a referendum in Scotland with two questions on the paper: exactly the kind of referendum that my hon. Friends and I are suggesting.

Mr. Cash: No doubt one of the STUC's reasons for taking such a position is the fact that it has discovered articles such as that written by James Michie for the National Association of Local Government Officers about the effect that the Maastricht treaty and the proposals for economic and monetary union will have on unemployment. The referendum question is not just a theological or constitutional issue; it is about whether people will be able to keep their jobs. We only hope—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to suggest—that the TUC and the United Kingdom take the same position, and that the coal miners do the same.

Mr. Salmond: I hope that other groups will do so as well. I should have thought, however, that the STUC would be far more influenced by the knowledge that the cause of Europe has been done few favours by our debates. I think that many STUC delegates would think that the argument for Europe would be far better deployed in the country, with more principle and conviction, than it is being deployed in the House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman will also know of the deep-seated knowledge in Scotland, in particular, of the constitutional principle of popular sovereignty, which is at the heart of the Scottish tradition—although it is not necessarily always at the heart of the tradition in this place.
I think that the STUC will have realised today that the Scottish and European cause would be helped if the argument about the future of Europe were taken to the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am certain that the delegates in Glasgow today hope for a change of mind on the part of Labour Front Benchers, which I—along with many other hon. Members—urge on them this evening. The STUC will be mindful of the importance of defeating the Government in an area that is absolutely central to their legislative programme, with all the consequences that might flow from such a defeat.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) came under pressure for suggesting that he believed that there was some conspiracy about the fact that we are debating such a vital subject at this time of night, with the vote pushed into the wee small hours of the morning. I subscribe to that view. There is something suspicious about this vital debate being timetabled in such a way as to ensure that we go into the Division Lobbies very late in the evening. Many people would prefer the vote to be in the dead of night, as opposed to the full light of day.
I suspect that many of those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench will soon prefer to forget about this evening's proceedings and about the vote that perhaps they will engage in later on. I warn those on the Opposition Front Bench that, although they may prefer to forget the dirty deeds that will be done later this evening, the Scottish National party will make sure that the people of Scotland neither forgive nor forget if they support the Government on this vote.

Mr. Peter Fry: I have been sitting here since the debate started. What is significant about it is the paucity of reasons why we should not have a referendum.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was not so much a declaration of policy as a smokescreen to hide the Labour party's confusion over this issue. One of the reasons often given is that the general election was the time for decision and that that is why the Government have a mandate. However, not a single person during the election campaign ever discussed Maastricht with me; no one asked about it; nobody wanted to discuss in on the doorstep; nobody raised it at public meetings. Therefore, it seems to me to be something of a fraud to say that the general election campaign settled the Maastricht treaty issue.
Another point that has been put forward was referred to by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He intimated that it had been suggested that the public would not understand—that the issues were too complicated. My answer to that is that when we ask people to vote in a general election we ask for a pretty simple decision but

what goes into the decision that they take can be very complicated indeed. Many people, for example, like so much of the Labour party's manifesto, so much of the Conservative party's manifesto, and even some of the Liberals'. They take those complicated issues and translate them into one decision. I see no reason why a referendum should not be subjected to exactly the same procedure.
Another point that has been raised is that Parliament has already decided and we do not need a referendum—the decision has already been taken. My view has been heavily influenced by my membership of the Council of Europe. I have discovered that there are two versions of the Maastricht treaty. There is the version that is sold in this country. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sincerely believes in what he says and sincerely thinks that the promises he has made can be honoured, but when one talks to continental colleagues one hears about a totally different version.

Mr. Budgen: The Foreign Secretary has a wonderful way of dealing with this. He says that they have rather elaborate language, by which he means that we ought to disregard the language when it seems inconsistent with the gloss that the Government put on the treaty.

Mr. Fry: I am grateful for that intervention because I had the privilege of listening to Chancellor Kohl at the latest session of the Council of Europe. He received tremendous applause for claiming that the train to European unity was on the move. What worried me was that not only was the train on the move but he was the driver, and I suspect that he had put down the lines in advance so he knew exactly what the destination would be.
10.45 pm
It is important that the people of this country realise that, no matter how honest the Government's intent, the vast majority of the Community see things very differently and want to interpret the treaty in its exact form. They will not later accept arguments that this or that does not matter.
It is also argued that holding a referendum is not the British way. I respect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), but there have been referendums and we are now dealing with matters of great constitutional significance. I argue that the handing over of power under the treaty is more substantial than some of the reasons for having had referendums in the past.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there not a fundamental difference between asking people whether they want pubs open on a Sunday or whether they want devolution, which is wholly within the Government's competence, and asking people to give a view on a package deal, a treaty which has been negotiated with our partners?

Mr. Fry: My response is exactly what I said earlier. Yes, it is a complicated issue, but let us not insult the intelligence of the British electorate. We are jolly glad when they elect us to this place, so it is right to give them the opportunity to express their views on such a complicated issue.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is paternalistic and patronising? We are here because our constituents vote for


us and we must represent them. At the end of the day, if we cannot trust the people of this country, who can we trust?

Mr. Fry: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments.

Sir Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that the Northern Ireland border poll was nothing to do with devolution within the United Kingdom and was more serious than the closing hours of pubs? Was it not wrong for the hon. Gentleman to draw that analogy? This is a matter of great constitutional importance and to treat it with contempt by comparing it with pub opening hours is foolish.

Mr. Fry: I am grateful for that information, which I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has absorbed.
Perhaps the final reason for not having a referendum is the fear that the electorate might say no. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether it is the case that, despite the full power of the Government's publicity machine, despite the full support of members of the official Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal party, most of the media, the Confederation of British Industry and the great and the good, in three weeks the Government could not obtain a yes vote in a referendum? If they could not, I suggest that that is the best reason why we should not accept the treaty.
Of course, there are reasons why we should have a referendum. One of the main ones is that I have not heard any effective reason why we should not. However, as someone has already said this evening, the main argument must be that it would give the people of this country the opportunity to express their views. More particularly, it would mean that the people who argue passionately for and against would have to put their case to the country. The complaint of many constituents—that they do not understand—would be removed.
There is overwhelming evidence that a considerable majority of the electorate want a referendum and would feel cheated if they did not get one. There is a strong argument for explaining Maastricht so that people can discover what it will mean, instead of discovering the consequences when it is too late to do anything about it. It is true that some other countries have voted yes. The Irish voted yes because they believed that they would gain considerably from the distribution of EC funds. In some countries we would call that bribery and it is bribery with other people's money, with our money. I do not think that one could ever accuse the British people of being ungenerous, but I suggest that when we are lining up those whom we should support, those who are suffering in Somalia, Sudan and Bosnia come a long way ahead of the people of Greece, Portugal and Ireland.

Mr. Budgen: What about Italy?

Mr. Fry: I will deal with Italy in a moment.
The third reason why I believe that we should involve the British people in making the decision is that it makes good political sense. If the country accepts the Maastricht treaty—I believe that there would be a fair chance of that happening, after a strong campaign—at least the people will have accepted considerable responsibility for the decision. If it goes terribly wrong and becomes terribly unpopular, I can just see the politicians of the day falling

over backwards to try to deny that they had anything to do with taking us into that monstrous organisation. At least if we brought the people into consideration they would share that responsibility. I should have thought that that was the right way to go forward into an uncertain future.
Far from being un-British, as some have suggested, the referendum would illustrate the depths of debate that there has been, and should be, in the country on the issue. One of the most disappointing aspects of the treaty has been the fact that most of our partners have failed to discuss the matter in great depth. The reason for that is not too difficult to find.
My contacts with continental politicians have led me to believe that, largely because of proportional representation, which makes their position dependent on their place in the lists prepared by their parties, they have an arrogance towards public opinion that no British politician could afford to share. That is why there has been no full debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) mentioned Italy, and it is significant that even Italy is now realising the errors of its ways and may turn towards our system of electing Members of Parliament.

Mr. Thomas Graham: May I suggest one scenario to the hon. Gentleman? I support the referendum and I will vote for it tonight. But I have had tremendous difficulty in following the Maastricht debate, and I have received only one letter on the subject since it all began—and that told me to support the referendum.
The important factor is that I fully support the social chapter, and I sat here for two days waiting to speak in the debate on it, but was denied the chance to do so. If there were a referendum, the people of Scotland, and of Wales and of England, the working-class voters and the unemployed, would turn down the treaty if they did not get the right to include the social chapter. We must be sure that any referendum includes a reference to the social chapter.

Mr. Fry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask me to comment on the literacy of his constituents in comparison with the literacy of mine, but I have certainly had considerably more than one letter about Maastricht. The best way to obtain the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask is to have a referendum.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Fry: Just a moment.
The most important argument is summed up in the answer to one question: have we in the House the right to give away substantial parts of our national sovereignty without the agreement of the British people? That is the fundamental question which every hon. Member must ask himself.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend could also ask whether, in aid of the parliamentary sovereignty to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) referred, we have the right to commit political suicide by handing over the whole system to the unaccountable, unelected central bankers, which will effectively prevent us from ever being able to reclaim the powers that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who led for the Opposition, claimed were irrevocable.

Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend makes the point that I was about to make. It seems that we are being asked to agree to an irrevocable treaty. However, I was always led to believe that each House of Commons, while respecting the decisions of its predecessors, is able to speak and decide for itself and make its own decisions—something which some critics of Parliament have called the tyranny of Parliament because of our power to make fundamental changes.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have realised that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), in his own inimitable fashion, was simply allowing him to develop the argument that the way to get the referendum and the social chapter is to ask for a vote on the new clause, as my colleagues and I are proposing.

Mr Fry: If I were to respond in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, I would reduce my enthusiasm to vote for the referendum. Therefore, I will decline that invitation.
With this treaty, we are transferring more and more decision making and law making to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. The move to a single currency —we are committed at least to the first and second stages —will mean that the House will lose the fundamental control of taxation which I remind hon. Members was the main cause of the civil war of the 17th century. It goes to the fundamental duty of the House to control taxation and public expenditure.
I suggest that we have increasingly seen our traditional way of life being affected, even down to whether we can serve cream and jam teas at village fetes. The intervention in our way of life will increase unless we stop the nonsense emanating from Brussels. I am worried that, by our adhering to the terms of the treaty without gaining the consent of the British people, that interference can only increase.
Those of our countrymen who understand what is happening largely do not like it. At the very least, they are suspicious. If they are to be subjected to external rule, surely they have the right to be asked first.
Parliament is supposed to be the protector of our national liberties and freedoms. It is supposed to provide the legal framework within which our people live. That is why—this is very important—when the voice of the electorate has been heard at a general election, the electorate accept the changes of policy that are caused by a change of Government. That is why we are remarkably free of civil disobedience and riotous disturbances in this country.
We are a law-abiding nation because our people have trusted the law makers to act in the people's interest, not in the interests of the law makers. I accept that, in that, the Government are supposed to give a lead. The Government have to put forward policies. However, a wise Government do not live too far ahead or away from public agreement.
In exchange for what is effectively a social contract, our citizens have overwhelmingly supported our system of government. We have not had a serious revolution since 1745 and that was fairly bloodless. In exchange for that, the liberties and freedoms of the people being protected by Parliament, the people have been prepared in successive wars to risk their homes, fortunes and their lives for Queen and country.
Whether it was the thousands who were slaughtered in Flanders in the first world war, the few in the battle of

Britain or those who went to free the Falklands, those men and women offered their lives in defence either of our freedom or, in the case of the Falklands, the right of people to decide their own future. That is the fundamental point.
In such circumstances, the people of this country allow us to exercise power on their behalf, knowing full well that they can get rid of us democratically at the next general election. I do not believe that they have given us in this Chamber any permanent right to do as we will with their liberties and freedoms. They have lent us this power on the understanding that he that giveth can taketh away if needs be. What worries me is that once we have given it away, we cannot take it back. Surely hon. Members should be asking themselves: can we vote to reduce foreign interference in or domination of our liberties and freedoms? Majority voting in the new system and handing power to the European Parliament and the Commission mean that we will simply be a smaller voice in a larger hole. The best that we can hope for is a series of muddy compromises. We do not get much muddier deals than those that are done in Brussels, considering the massive fraud of the common agricultural policy and, indeed, the extravagance of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
11 pm
How can we seriously keep faith with our people if we agree to the Maastricht treaty without giving them the opportunity to express their views? The right to vote was painfully won by the trade unionists, those who did not own property and the suffragettes. We do not have any right to reduce the value of what they painfully fought for over the years. Indeed, there is no point whatever in that struggle if we give away our sovereignty so easily.
The fundamental question is: who has the sovereign power? Is it the electorate, representing the nation, or the Houses of Parliament? I believe that Parliament expresses the power of the people on their behalf and speaks in their name, not in our name.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend heard the sincere speech of our right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) about all hon. Members exercising—I think I have his phrase correct—their judgment on behalf of the people in the United Kingdom. I must ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) a question because, clearly, he is reaching the end of his speech. After what has happened. are we able to exercise our judgment? Has not the most despicable, deplorable and disgraceful pressure been brought to bear by the party establishment to force hon. Members to act against their better judgment, against what they have experienced and overwhelmingly against the interests of their electorates and voters? The House is not supposed to exercise its judgment on the individual experience of hon. Members. This whole matter is a fraud and a charade, and Parliament should be ashamed of itself. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to this matter.

Mr. Fry: I hope that my hon. Friend does not expect me to respond in the same animated way as he made his intervention. I admire him for not voting for any amendments tabled by the Government on the treaty. Tonight, I will vote for the new clause which, I hope, will bring about a referendum.

Sir Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman think of a better example of the operation of an independent-minded Member for Parliament than the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)?

Mr. Fry: No, I cannot.

Sir Russell Johnston: According to the Government, he should be de-selected.

Mr. Fry: I cannot think of a better example. The other 649 hon. Members are perhaps not so independent for a variety of motives, including loyalty.[Interruption.] The intervention of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has distracted me from my speech.
Unfortunately, it is probably true that in the not-too-distant future this ancient parliamentary building will become the council chamber for the north-west region of Europe. It should become the council chamber because there has been a gradual evolution in the thinking of the British people. In reality, the idea of a European state commends itself to the majority of people on these islands. But it should not be imposed on them. They should have the right to say that they would rather wait and retain the sovereignty that we have now.
As I said, hon. Members have to make up their minds. But I was not elected to the House to take part in such a scale of transfer of sovereignty as I believe that Maastricht will entail, and certainly not without the consent of the British people. The phrase "trust the people" was scoffed at by one hon. Member. I would rather turn it round the other way. If we cannot show that we trust the people, why should they trust us?

Mr. Mike Watson: This has been a good debate and a full one. I have certainly enjoyed many of the speeches by hon. Members from various parties. It is entirely appropriate that we should discuss this fundamental issue not only in the context of Maastricht but for broader constitutional reasons. I believe that a referendum can be appropriate within the terms of our parliamentary democracy, depending on the issue that is to be decided.
The Maastricht treaty and its ratification is self-evidently an issue on which a referendum is appropriate. I am not of the view that a referendum would threaten our system of representative democracy to any significant extent. One of the problems with those who argue along those lines, as some have this evening, is that they assume that because we are elected to Parliament for terms of four or five years, we have the power to exercise judgment on behalf of our electorate on every issue which arises, even those which arise after a general election and those on which we may not have any opportunity to sound out opinion in our constituencies.
That brings me to a specific point about the debate on the referendum on the Maastricht treaty. It has been said before, but it bears repeating. There was no serious debate on Maastricht during the 1992 general election campaign or the period immediately before it. It could not have been the case. The treaty had not even been published in English by the time of the general election. So it could not have circulated or been discussed. It certainly was not discussed openly in the general election campaign.
It has also been said that all three major political parties came out in favour of ratification of the treaty. So anyone who wanted to express a different view was left with merely the possibility of abstention. That is hardly the way of advancing a representative democracy. So when we talk about representing people we have to be clear that we have a grasp of what their views are and what they think are the issues.
My impression from my constituency and from talking to other hon. Members here is that the general public in Britain have a poor understanding of what is in the treaty, what it stands for, and what its effects could be. We all share the blame for that. We should have taken the debate out into the constituencies. Some of us have done that. It has been difficult, but it has not been done to a great enough extent.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after a three-week campaign in which the issues could be debated on television and there could be many public meetings, the British public would he much better informed?

Mr. Watson: Absolutely. I am convinced that they would be. I had the privilege of spending some three weeks in France last summer during the referendum campaign. Whatever one may say about how the issues became tied up with Mitterrand, economic policy and the decline of the socialist party, it was clear that the issues were put before the French people. The issues were debated every evening on television. There were public meetings in the smallest village halls.
People got involved in that campaign. Whether they voted for or against the common agricultural policy or Mitterrand, people were informed and were able to make their decision on the Maastricht treaty on the basis of the information and the effects that it would be likely to have. Although I personally happened to be disappointed with the outcome, the referendum was a clear plus for representative democracy in France. We could benefit from a similar exercise in the United Kingdom.
The question of threats to our representative democracy have to be tempered with considerations such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned a few minutes ago. He said that pressure had been put on hon. Members on all aspects of the Maastricht treaty. If individual Members could arrive at their own decisions, the argument that a referendum would be a threat to our democracy would carry more weight. Of course, that is not the case—many of them are not permitted to do so, particularly Government Members, but also Opposition Members.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is always courteous to me—he is my pair. Does he agree that one of the problems in Scotland is that we fight a constitutional battle at every election? The constitutional issue is constantly at the top of the Scottish agenda at election time. One of the dangers faced by Parliament is that, if we do not give the Scottish people an opportunity to express a view on whether or not they want Maastricht —which they did not have at the general election—it could have fundamental implications for the unity of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and I both know that the conduct of the official Labour party tonight will have considerable impact because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others will exploit it.

Mr. Watson: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman links the issue in Scotland to the constitutional position. I do not believe that the 1992 general election gave anything other than a clear expression of the views of the Scottish people and what they want constitutionally. However, their wishes were denied by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Government. Therefore, there is a clear case to be made for having a referendum in Scotland on the constitutional issue. My party and I are in favour of that, and as the hon. Gentleman is nodding vigorously I take it that he has now come round to that view, which I very much welcome.
On the aspects of representative democracy, I was interested in one comment made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) who is not now present. He said that if we had a referendum campaign and put the arguments to the people, the decision would be made at an appalling superficial level. That argument makes two assumptions. The first is that the people of this country would gain no understanding from the referendum campaign, which is not true; they would undoubtedly get hold of the issues. The second assumption is that most hon. Members understand the treaty, its implications and why they have been voting as they have for the past four or five months. I believe that only a minority of hon. Members have anything other than a flimsy grasp of the issues. But we are suggesting that the people could not pick up the issues—they are more intelligent than hon. Members give them credit for. We are prepared to take the people's views once every five years, but not more frequently. A referendum campaign would undoubtedly serve the valuable function of informing people.
I am in favour of referendums on constitutional issues, and those held in this country have been on that basis. However, they have also—crucially—been about the transfer of power. That theme ran through the Northern Ireland referendum on the border issue in 1973, the membership of the European Community referendum in 1975—if anything was ever about the transfer of power, that referendum certainly was—and the Scottish and Welsh referendums which were about transferring power from Westminster to Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. It is also the issue dominating the Maastricht debate.
I am passionately pro-European, but am concerned about the Maastricht treaty, particularly economic convergence, which is why I shall not support the treaty's ratification. The treaty involves the transfer of power and the loss of power, certainly in terms of economic and monetary policies. I believe that such fundamental issues will adversely affect my constituents, which is why I oppose ratification of the treaty.
I am in favour of a referendum, which is a legitimate means of enhancing our democracy, not undermining it. I deplore the suggestion that those of us who support a referendum do so simply as a device to wreck the Maastricht treaty, which is not true. Hon. Members have stated their case today and some who are in favour of the treaty are also in favour of a referendum.
To make a purely party-political point, the Labour party changed its policy in the early 1970s to one of support for a referendum during the term of the Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). The Labour party position changed prior to the 1974 general election, and the party entered the election advocating a referendum.
11.15 pm
The evidence is that it was a popular decision. People welcomed the opportunity of being consulted and having their opinions canvassed. As far as any polling evidence is available, the Labour party benefited and was successful in both the 1974 elections. It is popular with the people. Although they give us a certain amount of power as their representatives, people feel that they should have their say on crucial constitutional issues.
I should like to refer to an issue that has been discussed earlier this evening—the interesting decision by the Scottish Trades Union Congress to change its position in favour of a referendum. It should be stated that that was not the only motion discussed today. I shall read out the motion which established that position. It states:
That this Congress appreciates the Constitutional importance of the Maastricht Treaty and therefore urges the Government to organise a referendum on the Treaty before a Parliamentary vote.
Such a referendum should be the conclusion of a wide-ranging debate on the details of the Treaty and the further impact on the British and Scottish people.
It is interesting in that it represents a change of position and reflects the mood of the times. In Scotland that would be in favour of a referendum on our constitutional settlement, so it would be inconsistent not to support a referendum on Maastricht.
The motion also has to be set in the context of the STUC policy on the Maastricht treaty. I shall read out a paragraph of a motion which states:
Congress calls on the General Council to campaign against the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, to demand that the British Government immediately revokes its assent to the Treaty and to call for a referendum by which the British people can freely express their own will on this matter.
That was an anti-Maastricht motion and it was overwhelmingly defeated this afternoon, shortly before the motion in favour of the referendum was carried.
The STUC is not in favour of a referendum because it is against the treaty; it is in favour of ratification of the treaty yet still sees the benefit of a referendum so that the people of the United Kingdom can have their say. That reflects the need for people to be consulted. The people put their trust in us and we should have the confidence to put our trust in them on such a fundamental issue.
Another matter that carries some weight was raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing. He said that we have already endorsed the Bill on Second Reading and it is likely to be further endorsed within this Parliament. He asked how that would sit with a decision of the people of the United Kingdom if they were to vote against it.
Those of us who advocate a referendum are not doing so simply because we want to see the treaty wrecked. I do not know what the outcome would be. Thinking back to the 1975 referendum, there was certainly great imbalance in the way in which the arguments were presented. The media came down on one side as did many of the resources which industry and political parties were able to command. I suspect that it would be little different if we were to have a referendum on Maastricht and that in itself may prove sufficient to sway the decision.
I do not know how it would turn out. I know how I would want it to turn out, but we cannot predict with any certainty because in many cases money brings power and influence and arguments become clearer if they are backed with sufficient resources.
I do not see why a referendum would cut across our parliamentary democracy. We make decisions here as


Members of Parliament, but that does not stop us consulting people and saying, "This is what we think, what do you think?" If people say that they want something different, that does not necessarily mean mass resignations and the fall of the Government. We put our trust in the people and say, "This is our view, you can accept or reject it, but we shall let you decide". That is what democracy is about.

Mr. John Carlisle: I have made very little contribution to these debates over the past few weeks, but I have been watching and listening to what has been going on. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a most splendid speech. We expect of him the patriotism he showed, and it was appreciated by both sides of the Committee. During the past few weeks, some men and women here present have fought an historic battle against the biggest threat that the House has faced for many centuries. If we ratify this most awful treaty, our children and grandchildren will look back on the event in sorrow.
We all admit that this subject has not caught the public's imagination, as judged by the number of letters they write, although those of us who have shown our dissent from the treaty have probably received more correspondence than others. It has also been remarkable to see, over these weeks, how those who have attended and spoken in our debates have, almost to a man and woman, been those who oppose the treaty. Those who vigorously support it have been conspicuous by their absence: they have rarely been here, with one or two notable exceptions.
The trouble for the Government began when, after Second Reading, they took it for granted that all would be well. Having gained a massive majority last May on Second Reading, why did they not crack on with the Bill to ratify the treaty? The Prime Minister and Government told us that it was because the Government wanted to take stock and sound out opinions, and that there would be a paving debate in November when the House could express an opinion.
When that paving debate arrived, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has described, the most disgraceful tactics were used to get people into the Lobby to support the Government. Right at the death, before the vote, some shoddy deals took place, across the Floor of the House as well as within our party. The tragedy of that evening was that the Government failed to realise that the warning shots that were fired, in a debate that would have no effect on the treaty, were expressions of real opinion. With the narrow margin of three votes, they decided to bully their way ahead and push the Bill through as fast as they could. That was a serious error of judgment, both by the Government and by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Did not those shoddy deals include some by the Scottish National party, whose members are not even in the Chamber?

Mr. Carlisle: I have never been and am never likely to be privy to the deals made between the occupants of the Front Benches, and I have no intention of ever sitting on the Front Bench—not that any Government would have any intention of putting me there. But certainly, ii the rumours are to be believed, shoddy deals were struck., and a great many people should be ashamed of the way they behaved.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the Scottish nationalists did engage in a dreadful deal, they have tried to redeem themselves tonight by offering the Labour party the chance of getting its glorious social chapter if its members will vote for amendment (a) to new clause 49 tonight. If the Opposition really care about the social chapter—I do not believe they do; it is a load of rubbish—they can have it tonight, so should they not be grateful to the Scottish nationalists for giving them this glorious chance?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend rightly points out the divisions between the various opposition parties, but there are also divisions on our side. Many of us have been deeply hurt by the ministerial insults to which we have been subjected. During the summer, we were called naive and described as pigmies, yet all we were doing was reflecting the opinions of our constituents, and expressing, as is our right and duty, the fears felt by them and others.
It ill befits a Government to take it upon themselves to insult their own Back Benchers, and it ill befits Ministers to refuse to go to various constituencies. Indeed, at our annual central conference, it was wrong for the chairman of the party to pick on individuals and to mount a vicious campaign to encourage constituents to turn against their Members. I remind the chairman that it is my party as well as his. I am sorry that he is not here to hear what has been said.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend note that our right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was a most distinguished former chairman of the party, has described the whole process as shameful?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes. It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who originally indicated his dissent, then said that he would support what he called this wretched little Bill and in the end supported the Government. The whole saga has brought out the worst in the Conservative party. At times, many of us were ashamed to be members of it.
In the whole argument on the referendum, I cannot understand what everyone is so frightened about. Many hon. Members have said that we should trust the people, and that their opinion is worth having. As I told the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) during the Division at 10 o'clock, his speech was one of the most outstanding contributions that I have heard from the Opposition. He spoke much sense, in particular when he said that there was an arrogant feeling that the House always knows best and that the people do not know. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) said, had we had a referendum, the information which people thirsted after would have been available.
Members of the Cabinet have admitted that they have not even read the treaty, yet they are pushing it through the House. Had there been a referendum early in the process, it would have provided a way out for the Government. They would have understood the deep-rooted feelings on this side of the House, which are expressed not just by those who have consistently, night after night, opposed the Government. To a certain extent, what sticks in our craw are those colleagues, many in ministerial office, who have gone through the Lobbies in support of the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said, with


clothespegs on their noses, because they do not like the treaty. Many have said to me, "Thank heaven there are those of you who are opposing it."
That feeling is reflected outside the House. I respect the decision of those Ministers of the Crown, and I am glad that they are in government to reflect my view. Long may they stay there; but the day may come when they have to ask themselves why they stayed in office and did not follow their consciences, as the rest of us have done.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I was originally against the idea of a referendum when it was suggested by Baroness Thatcher. I thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy and all that I had stood for in my 14 years here. I do not say now that I want a referendum, since in some people's eyes it might be because we were staring defeat in the face.
This is the largest constitutional crisis to hit the House. Hon. Members have referred to how much things have changed since the treaty was signed. They may still change. The Danes have still to vote. The Germans are in the courts. The French have had an opinion poll since their referendum, with 60 to 70 per cent. saying that they wish they had voted against the treaty. So opinions have changed. The Government should have recognised that. To plough on willy-nilly, as they have done, totally disregarding the will of the people, is wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I think that my hon. Friend is coming towards the end of his speech, but he has not yet directed his attention to one of the real failures of the debate. It is that, on most occasions, the Government, who are so keen on the treaty, have entirely failed to answer the debate. I have great respect for Ministers, but surely in such a debate, and especially in Committee, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Paymaster General or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have a duty to Parliament and through it to the people to respond, so that, at the end of the debate, people will at least know the Government's position.

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with my hon. Friend. In speeches that I have heard, Ministers have spent the whole time defending what they say is not in the treaty. They have spoken about so-called misinterpretation by my hon. Friends who have picked up, line by line and comma by comma, the implications of—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we could hear a little about the referendum.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise, Mr. Lofthouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) diverted me.
During debate in Committee, and as the argument, albeit low key, has raged throughout the country, so opposition to the treaty has hardened. The number of hon. Members voting against amendments and not supporting various new clauses has been consistent or has increased.
I and some of my hon. Friends are a bit long in the tooth, but some younger hon. Members have been under great pressure. One would have thought that they would buckle, but opinion in this place and outside has remained

consistent. About 73 per cent. of people want a referendum and would vote no, and that percentage has remained consistent for months. That is why it is remarkable that the Government have chosen not to have a referendum.
Those who are most keen on a referendum were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). They are the older people who fought in the war. Hon. Members have had many discussions in the houses of those who fought for their countries and came through the last world war and other wars. Those people cannot understand how their beloved House of Commons and their representatives are selling them down the river.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, because I have a certain affection for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Graham: As I have said, I am in favour of a referendum for many reasons, but I shall not go into them in an intervention. Plainly, if people in Britain saw the social chapter included in the treaty, the Government's reputation might be improved a bit. As long as the social chapter is not included, people will see the Government as hoodwinking them. I am sure that hon. Members remember the campaigning in the run-up to the referendum in the 1970s. We were told, "When we join the Common Market, we will have bigger pensions and more jobs and holidays. We will do really well." I remember that campaign on the streets of Govan and Linwood. We were about to enter a bonanza land. Now those Ministers are telling us, "That is not on. It is too costly."

Mr. Carlisle: I shall not be drawn on the social chapter. My affection for the hon. Gentleman may lessen, and in future I may buy him singles rather than doubles. However, I am grateful to him for his intervention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) drew attention to one of the most helpful remarks in the debate. It was made by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that nothing was irrevocable. The right hon. Gentleman, who is not here to defend himself, has either not read the treaty or has not fully understood its implications. The tragedy of the whole process is that, once we pass the Bill and ratify the treaty, there is no going back even if decisions were wrong. A referendum would enable us to hold back and say, "No, we are not happy with the way things are." I fear that, in this case, it is not the British House of Commons. Governments cannot come back and overturn decisions. That power has gone, and gone for ever.
The second point concerns the myth that is put about —I regret to say, by some of my hon. Friends—that we should pass the Bill because the treaty will never happen. That is the most spurious and defeatist of arguments.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And dishonest.

Mr. Carlisle: It is dishonest. If we work on the theory that we should pass legislation, or, in this case, ratify a treaty because we think that it will not in the end affect us, we are all wasting our time. Many hon. Members have used that theory as an excuse not to join us in opposing the treaty. The people must have, and should be given, the


chance to express their opinion, which I know would reflect that held by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who oppose this wretched treaty.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The speech of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) showed yet again—it has been a feature of almost every speech from a Conservative Member, not just in tonight's debate but in almost every debate that we have had on any aspect of the Bill—the private horrors in the Conservative party, with pressure being put on Back Benchers, and all the rest of it. We appreciate that the Government must try to get their way, but the referendum issue has a distinct nature, quite separate from trying to change this or that part of the Bill, or to put in the social chapter rather than leave it out. Therefore, if there were one issue on which it would have made eminently good sense for the Government and, for that matter, the Labour party simply to have a free vote to find out the sentiment of the House, it was a referendum.
When my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats first mentioned his preference for a referendum some months ago, it was made clear then, and I make it clear now, that it causes us no difficulty that there are differences within the party. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who has been most active during the debates on the Bill, will assuredly vote against the new clause that is aimed at introducing a referendum. I have worked with him throughout the proceedings on the Bill, and I shall be voting for a referendum. That makes no difference, given that we share an identical view—that Maastricht should be ratified and built on along lines that would not find favour with any of the Euro-sceptics on either side of the House, as we should like Europe to go in a more federal direction. We feel that we can hold that view while having open and honest differences about whether the British people should be consulted on the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with such an astonishing record of consistency, with such defence of fair and democractic principles, with such courage, the Liberals should be interested in having their peformance brought out in the prime-time debates rather than carrying the whole thing through at dead of night, as they conspired to do by voting with the Government on the 10 o'clock motion?

Mr. Kennedy: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We were anxious that today should be a clean debate on the referendum in prime time, and I regret that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) scuppered today's proceedings by tabling a motion attacking the Chairman of Ways and Means and taking up three hours of our time in a debate on that. If there are criticisms, they should be directed towards the right hon. Gentleman, not towards the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I ask this question because I genuinely want information. The rumour around the tea rooms and corridors is that the Liberals are split on the issue. Is the hon. Gentleman carrying the whole of his party with him in what he is saying?

Mr. Kennedy: Given that intervention, I am beginning to feel some sympathy for Ministers who have been trying to get their message across to the furthest reaches of the Back Benches. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record

tomorrow, he will see that I began by saying that there should be a free vote, and that there are different views among Liberal Democrats. I cited the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber who holds views on the referendum that are the opposite of mine.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: The night would not be complete without the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman wonder how hon. Members who represent Scotland and who regularly advocate referendums on matters affecting Scottish constitutional issues can tell their constituents that they could not support a referendum on the treaty? The hon. Gentleman approves of it—I do not—but he must recognise that it has massive constitutional implications. Does he think that it makes any sense for those hon. Members to tell their constituents that they will not support a call for a referendum on the treaty, when they constantly call for a referendum on Scotland?

Mr. Kennedy: That is somewhat off the point, but I am in favour of referendums on Scotland and on Maastricht. One could argue that the nature of the treaty, which involves other powers and other countries, albeit within the EC, means that a referendum on it would be of a different nature from one that would pertain only to our constitutional arrangements. I would not argue for such a distinction, but I appreciate that it could be made.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, but I must then make progress.

Mr. Winterton: I genuinely like the hon. Gentleman, although I disagree with his views. On this issue, however, we are as one in our support of a referendum on the treaty. Does he accept, however, that he was unfair on the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he said that that right hon. Gentleman had wasted more than three hours of our time? Tomorrow has also been allocated for further progress on the Bill, when we will merely debate issues on which both sides of the Committee appear to be united. Why should we proceed after 10 o'clock to debate a matter that could be debated tomorrow? If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had supported those of us who opposed the lifting of the 10 o'clock rule, perhaps we would have got what we all desired.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary opening comments. We are not privy or party to what the hon. Gentleman's business managers and Whips decide about certain amendments. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke about deals, but my party has not been party to any. We cannot plan on the basis of possible Government action; that is a matter for them.
It is clear from the debates that have taken place in the Chamber and outside throughout this whole drawn-out process that the social dimensions of the treaty remain profound and politically charged. Whether the Government are attempting to weave, take the sting out or avoid defeat tomorrow, it is important that the debates on those dimensions are rehearsed then, especially if one subscribes to the view held by the hon. Member for


Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and many of his hon. Friends about the importance of our forum as the cockpit of the nation. Those debates should take place whether or not the Government have staged a tactical retreat in advance.
The precedent for a referendum on constitutional issues has been established in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Other countries have also held referendums in the course of ratifying Maastricht. I share the hostility that is expressed when we are told that the issues are too complex for the people to understand. That is an awful slippery slope and the thin end of the wedge. Our people have a good democratic track record based on constitutional history and I cannot believe that they would not understand the arguments if they were thrashed out in a referendum campaign, especially when the people of Denmark, Ireland and France were capable of doing so. When people say that it is all too complicated for the typical citizen and the average voter, that reveals more of the arrogance of those who make the assertion than the intelligence of the voters to whom the proposition is being put.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The answer is, as President Mitterrand said, that the people will answer the wrong question, not that the question is too complex. They will answer the wrong question because the response will reflect the view of the Government of the day. The French referendum was about the standing or otherwise of President Mitterrand, views on immigration and views on agriculture—issues which were all unrelated to the Maastricht treaty. I took part in the French referendum and I know that Maastricht played a small part in the decision of the French people. That is the danger of referendums, not the complexity of the issue.

Mr. Kennedy: Any Member sitting on the Opposition Benches, irrespective of the party that he represents, probably thought just over a year ago, "The damned people of this country made the wrong decision." How inconvenient and troublesome it was for us, but in their wisdom that was the decision that they took. I revert to the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument: if anyone fears that the people will answer the wrong question, or answer the right question but not give the answer that is wanted, which is another way of putting the same thing, he is embarking on a dangerous road.

Sir Russell Johnston: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I shall happily give way to, perhaps, my former hon. Friend.

Sir Russell Johnston: My hon. Friend has suggested that those who are opposed to referendums might be arrogant. He referred to the referendum in Denmark and asked why there could not be one in the United Kingdom. Does he recall that it was established after the referendum in Denmark that about two weeks before it took place about 28 per cent. of the Danish population had never heard of Maastricht?

Mr. Kennedy: Those of us who have sat through the night over the past few months considering the Maastricht treaty might think that the 28 per cent. were blessed. I

would say to my hon. Friend, or my party colleague, which is how I would describe him in this instance, that in the United Kingdom the arguments have been pretty well thrashed out when referendums have taken place in the past. The media—especially the television medium—have performed a valuable role in giving a considerable amount of coverage to referendums. I should like to think that the percentage of those in the United Kingdom who had not heard about Maastricht would be considerably smaller than in Denmark.
I must make that the last intervention because I want to—

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have given way to him already. I must move on.
Maastricht is a constitutional issue. I have much sympathy with the so-called Euro-sceptics as they have dissected the various aspects of the treaty. They have examined citizenship, the meaning of a European union, the provision of a central bank and the longer-term development of a single currency, which are all issues of massive constitutional import for the United Kingdom. It is the Government Front Bench that has bedevilled the entire process. There are those who have told the truth as they see it. They have expressed their views honestly and openly as they see them. I should like to think that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have done so. On many occasions we have been in the minority, but we have talked about the way in which we would like to see Europe develop.
I acknowledge that many of those who are dead against Maastricht, along with many other features of the European experiment or construction, have also spoken honestly. Unfortunately, the Government have not spoken out firmly and consistently for what they want from Maastricht. They have not set out their long-term vision because they have been trying to appeal to two irreconcilable audiences—those who are in the vanguard, as it were, of European development, who want to see Britain's future firmly enmeshed and integrated in the rest of Europe, and those who are not.
For as long as the House of Commons and the country generally suffer from that vacillation—the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and their ministerial colleagues have been trying to square the circle —we shall not be able to say that we have distinguished ourselves with a sufficiently honest or open debate on an important treaty. That is one of the reasons—in regard to Maastricht itself—that lead me to believe that we should secure a more open and honest debate if that debate were thrashed out up and down the land.
I subscribe to some of the criticisms that we have heard tonight and on other occasions. It has been pointed out, for example, that we have had to sit late into the night; certainly we have used our votes to facilitate that, because we want the treaty to be ratified. I should like to think, however, that if a message has emerged from the way in which this extremely important matter has been handled by the House of Commons, it relates to the overwhelming case for reforming our own procedures.
It is high time that we started sitting in the mornings, sitting earlier and more constructively in the afternoons and using prime time in the sense that that is recognised by


people outside—that is, normal working hours. The public should see major decisions being made—big votes being taken—early in the evening, perhaps after a day's debate. I should like to think that a referendum campaign could be broadened to cover more than Maastricht itself, and to deal with what the handling of the treaty has revealed about the mechanisms of the House of Commons.
There is, without doubt, a sense that the politicians are out of step with the electorates. We have seen that in the United States, with the phenomenon of Ross Perot's taking nearly 20 per cent. of the vote; we have seen it on the continent, where people are turning increasingly to right-wing leaders of a rather unpleasant variety. It may be the result of the recession; it may be because the political classes have been seen to be talking about Maastricht in what is all too often an exclusive way, not including the public. That is a dangerous position to get into in any individual democracy. It is particularly dangerous when we are trying to weld together a complicated European Community, leading on to a European union that is, itself, a hybrid or mosaic composed of a number of democracies with different traditions and attitudes.
I believe that a referendum at this stage would be a useful way of forcing all of us to go out and explain to our electorate, in as much detail as we can, what the treaty is about and our individual attitudes to it. We might find at the end of such an exercise that there was less distance between this place as an establishment and the country as a whole, and I believe that that would be healthy for democracy itself.
My final point has already been raised by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He said that, at the end of the day, he did not believe that a referendum would solve the issue, just as Harold Wilson's referendum in the mid-1970s on the renegotiated terms of the Common Market did not resolve that issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right; I hope that a referendum would not resolve the issue. The whole point of a referendum is

that—like a general election—it provides a snapshot of public opinion on a particular day. It does not show the whole film; it shows one frame out of the reel. In any democracy, the campaigns and debates of both sides will go on. They will not end when the ballot boxes have closed on a particular day of a particular month in a particular year. When the treaty has been ratified—as I hope that it will be—there will be another intergovernmental conference in 1996, and decisions will flow from that. There will be more heated arguments in the House.

Mr. Donald Anderson: There will be another referendum.

Mr. Kennedy: Whatever the Government of the day, if it comes to a proposal for a single currency, for instance, the House of Commons might well decide on a referendum. Why not? We, as democratically elected Members of Parliament, are obliged to renew our mandate every four or five years; equally, when the very basis of our parliamentary democracy is involved, I see no logical reason for us not to try to renew our mandate for Britain's continued involvement in Europe—and for the deepening of that involvement in a more federal direction, which I should like to see.
Although at times our proceedings have been neither neat nor elegant—we have not distinguished ourselves in our handling of the treaty so far—we can go a long way towards improving our reputation by putting the question to the people. I do not believe that we have anything to fear. Despite the strong sentiments expressed here and the reservations expressed outside, I am confident that a vigorous referendum campaign on the Maastricht treaty—which would oblige party leaders and others to line up, broadly speaking, in its favour—would produce a yes vote. That would lead to the authority of the House being strengthened and to the role of this country in Europe being strengthened, too.

Mr. Hurd: Tonight's argument is full of echoes from the past. It started many years ago. In 1972, Parliament passed the European Communities Act. Thus, 20 years ago Parliament enabled the Government of the day to ratify British accession to the treaty of Rome. We thereby then, in 1972, committed ourselves to the defined aim of that treaty—the ever closer union of peoples. We thereby then, in 1972, agreed a system of European lawmaking which we have practised ever since as members of the Community.
When I listen to and read the report of the debates in this Committee, I am struck over and over again—and yet again tonight—by the way in which criticism centres not so much on the treaty of Maastricht as on those two aspects of the treaty of accession. It centres not on the proposals of 1992 but on the decision of 1972. That came through very clearly when I listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry).
When I put that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), he partially accepted it. It was in 1972 that the House faced, and resolved, this fundamental question of the relationship between its powers and British membership of the Community. As I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills when, in an eloquent and remarkable speech, he moved the new clause, the echoes were very clear. The arguments, almost the words, were those used by another eloquent and remarkable parliamentary orator, the former Member of Parliament for South Down. The echoes were unmistakable.

Mr. Benn: The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes confirms everything that we say: that in 1972 there was no popular consent. The argument was never presented to the public. The decision was imposed by the Government—whether he was a member of it I cannot remember—on the House of Commons against the wishes of the then Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman is right: the Government have never won public support for that transfer of power. Even in 1975 it was a bit too late, but even after the 1975 referendum there remains deep public hostility, because those who advocate a federal Europe have never had the guts to tell the public what it is really about.

Mr. Hurd: But the referendum that the right hon. Gentleman proposes would not alter that situation one whit. It would leave all the apparatus of the treaty of Rome, the treaty of accession, the 1972 Act and the Single European Act in place. That is exactly the point that I was beginning to make.
Three years later, in 1975, the Government who were then in power—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) knows more about this than most of us—were divided on this issue and solved this critical internal problem by proposing a referendum. The Conservative party had to define its attitude. Its leaders knew that the motives of the Government of the day were not reputable. They were concerned to keep themselves in office, papering over this division over a central part of their policy.
If there were ever a case for holding a referendum on Europe, that case was stronger at the time of entry than it has ever been since, yet when the Conservative party in opposition in 1975 had to define its position it came out against a referendum, and it was right to do so. The

reasons were spelt out on 11 March of that year by the leader of the party. It was her first major parliamentary speech as Leader of the Opposition. I joined almost all of my party, including many right hon. and hon. Friends here today, and went into the Lobby to vote against the holding of a referendum on our membership of the Community.
It is worth looking up that speech. It was a remarkable speech which took into account both sides of the argument. She pointed out that the 1975 referendum was not a principled constitutional innovation, as I have said. It was a device, but that did not dispose of the argument. There was a general constitutional argument which also had to be considered. She dwelt—and we need to dwell tonight—on the nature of our parliamentary tradition, and many hon. Members on both sides of the argument have done so.
12 midnight
I do not believe that our parliamentary tradition has failed, as has been suggested, to cope with the problem since 1972. With the Danes and the Folketing, we have the most highly developed system for the scrutiny of Community legislation. Our Prime Minister was the only leader to go to the Maastricht conference with a specific authority from his Parliament, which was then met in full.
It is worth running through the sequence of events to show how the parliamentary system has worked in this respect. On 20 and 21 November 1991, before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht, the House of Commons was asked to approve a motion endorsing his negotiating position and did so by a majority of 101. That was not necessary and probably not even usual before such a conference and negotiation. It was a precaution because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was anxious at all stages to carry the House—the previous Parliament—with him.
On 18 and 19 December, immediately after Maastricht, the House of Commons was asked to approve the outcome of the negotiation and did so by a majority of 86. In May last year, after the election, the present Parliament was asked to grant a Second Reading to the Bill, necessary for the ratification of the treaty, and did so by a majority of 244.
This is not an idle or atrophied system. It is parliamentary democracy at work, complete with imperfections—I agree with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—untidiness and arguments about procedure and when we should discuss this or that point. I do not give great weight to the argument that this was done blindfold because it took time to achieve and circulate an authentic full text of the treaty. Of course, it was not done blindfold. Parliament knew what was happening. Those who took part in the discussion at the general election knew what the treaty involved, and the blindfold argument does not stand up in real life.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Hurd: May I just pursue this sequence of events?
Of course there was not a clash between the parties—there was a difference of emphasis—but I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I do not like to toss around the word "arrogant", which has been tossed around, but his speech was a rather patronising lecture on the nature of parliamentary responsibilities. As I said when he was kind enough to give


way, I reject entirely the suggestion that there was a conspiracy to keep the silence on this matter, either in the general election or beyond. Personally, I can testify how often I tried to include in that campaign the speeches and broadcasts on the subject—admittedly for party political reasons, as I wanted to bring out the nuances between the parties. However, it was not possible to do so because, from the media's point of view, it was not a great issue.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he advocated a White Paper during the leadership election campaign? Will he explain why we had no White Paper? Since Second Reading and our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism, and in the light of the Danish referendum, how can we give the same credibility to the Second Reading that we might have done in May last year? Does he agree that the circumstances have changed radically, as result of which we deserve a referendum?

Mr. Hurd: We had a White Paper on events in the Community, but as I recall it was made particular by a foreword by the Prime Minister. Of course events move on. I accept what my hon. Friend says about that. There were the Danish referendum and the events of 16 September, but the treaty is the same treaty. I do not accept my hon. Friend's analysis of the ERM. There have been many discussions about that in the Committee. and I do not accept that what happened revolutionised the situation in the way that my hon. Friend described.
I make this point gently, but it is odd that those who would put most emphasis on the sovereignty of the House believe that it needs to be buttressed, to put it mildly—I would say that it would be weakened—by recourse to a referendum on the matter before us.
I share the opinion of those who think that if there were a campaign a referendum would endorse the treaty. I cannot prove it, but I think it likely that once the phantasms were effectively swept away, that would probably be the result. We certainly are not taking our present line because of fear of a negative result.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I ask my right hon. Friend one question: does he believe that the majority of Conservative voters are in favour of the treaty on European union?

Mr. Hurd: I cannot prove it scientifically to my hon. Friend, but I believe that the answer is yes.
As Parliament is sovereign—

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall get on a bit, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend, as I believe that I always have done.
As Parliament is sovereign, it is clear that it could decide to hold a referendum, which it could either accept or reject. It could certainly choose, as it has before, to ask for advice from those who sent us here. But I return to the fact that we owe our constituents our judgment, and if we decline to exercise that judgment we are to some extent damaging the authority of Parliament.
Many people can be quoted on both sides of the argument. One of those is certainly Winston Churchill. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) referred to him. When the point came up in 1911 Churchill said:
We believe in democracy, we believe in representative institutions, we believe in democracy acting through representative institutions … We believe Members of

Parliament are representatives, not delegates. We believe that Governments are the guides as well as the servants of the Nation.
I readily acknowledge that Churchill can also be quoted on the other side of the argument, but when he held the opposite view in 1945 the normal constitutional procedures were in suspense, as my hon. Friend would agree.
My right hon. Friend the Baroness Thatcher quoted Dicey in her speech in 1975, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, Dicey too, went through a flip-flop. He was against referendums in one edition and in favour of them in another, when he passionately opposed home rule. Then he reverted to wisdom in what I believe was his final edition, and he was against referendums again. One could now also quote my right hon. Friend the Baroness Thatcher on both sides of the argument, but it might be prudent to resist the temptation to do so.

Mr. Budgen: May I refer my right hon. Friend back to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked him about the balance of opinion within the Conservative party? Judging by his own local party, does he agree that it is probable that about half the Conservative party in the country opposed the treaty? Yet out of a parliamentary party of 335 Members, only 26 oppose the treaty—between 8 and 9 per cent. Does that not show that, as a result of the pressures on the parliamentary party, we in that party do not even begin to represent the balance of opinion in the party outside?

Mr. Hurd: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—and I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has buttressed the argument—there is no scientific measure.
Like the Labour party, the Conservative party has a party conference. We had a trot around this course at the last party conference. We had a very lively debate in which I and others had the privilege to take part. We had a vote at the end of that debate and the result was very satisfactory from my point of view. That was after the Danish referendum and after the events of 16 September. That was the Conservative party in full plenary conference, expressing its views very substantially and clearly on that particular issue. We do not have quite the same rigid views about our party conferences as the Labour party, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East is provoking me into making constitutional doctrine in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was absolutely right. The 1975 referendum is not the only referendum that has been held. However, it is not fair to go on to argue, as my hon. Friend did, being a little economical with history, that the referendum has become a normal part of our constitutional practice.
The strongest point in the armoury of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was the Northern Ireland border poll. I accept that. It is the only example of a referendum being put into practice by a Conservative Government. Others have been toyed with for different reasons by leaders of the Conservative party, but they were not actually activated. In that, as in many respects, Northern Ireland is unique in the politics of the kingdom.
An act of self-determination solely for the people of the Province was, and remains as it is still on the statute book, a reasonable technique.
I want now to consider the proposal for a referendum on this subject. We have contended throughout the debate that the treaty does not mark a fundamental constitutional shift. When we joined the European Community we joined a body with both an economic and a political dimension. If we read through the debates in 1972, through the literature of 1975 and through the document that the leader of my party sent to party activists during the 1975 campaign, the political and economic arguments for remaining in the Community are clear.
The doctrine of the primacy of Community law that lies at the heart of so many understandable criticisms about the nature of the Community is a doctrine of 1972, not of the treaty of Maastricht.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not that argument fortified by the 1975 referendum which surely cannot have been a decision on a Europe that was static and which would remain fossilised in the 1975 position? Inherent in that popular vote in 1975 was a vote for the dynamic Europe that would evolve.

Mr. Hurd: That is right. However, the hon. Gentleman's point begs the question of in which direction it should evolve and I will consider that in a minute.
The use of qualified majority voting is perhaps a test. It was not invented in the treaty of Maastricht. It is in the treaty of Rome. It received its greatest extension in the Single European Act. There was no referendum on that and precious little call for one.
The treaty of Maastricht adds to and, in some helpful ways, redefines and corrects the Single European Act and, I believe, is on the whole less constitutionally innovative than that Act. We have discussed subsidiarity and I will not repeat those arguments. Whether or not people believe that it is a weak or strong buttress, it is certainly an advance on the present position from the point of view of most hon. Members. That is an example of the point that I am trying to make.
Of course the treaty provides for the three stages of economic and monetary union. I deal with that point because many hon. Members have stressed it. In respect of the third stage of economic and monetary union, the only stage where compulsion comes into it, the Government have specifically and successfully reserved the decision for the House of Commons.
I will not go through all the details, but in other respects with regard to the treaty we have advanced our arguments and analyses. In the big new areas of European work, for the first time the principle of ever-closer union to which we have been committed since 1972 is defined in the treaty of Maastricht as co-operation between national Governments accountable to national Parliaments. It need not have been so. I mentioned that there was a Dutch draft in September which swept away that concept and put all European work under the court with the Commission having the monopoly initiative. We rejected that. The treaty that is before us is on a different basis.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the treaty of union requires the whole to be under a single institutional structure, even allowing for intergovernmental matters? Does he agree that the intergovernmental mode, of which he and the Prime Minister have made great play, will be inevitably interlarded in meetings of various Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, in the general council? Therefore, the two in practice, as distinct from law, will become increasingly indistinguishable.

Mr. Hurd: The single framework of which the hon. Gentleman speaks includes intergovernmental cooperation. That co-operation was not included before: it was always the Community. The question was: how far should the Community's jurisdiction and activity extend? We now have a new structure under the Council of Ministers—the heads of state and Government—but not under the Commission. We have a different structure which includes, for the first time, the two new pillars. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the difference.
The House has the right and the capacity under our system to approve the treaty if it decides to do so. Other countries have referendums. Nine member states have proceeded through the parliamentary process and three have proceeded through the referendum technique. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and others, there is one point that I must stress because it is a difference between now and 1975. The treaty of Maastricht is not a take it or leave it matter as far as the Government are concerned. It cannot be detached from the rest of the Government's programme. I do not know what Lord Wilson's Government would have done if the vote had been no. I do not know how on earth it would have managed to take out of its policies something which even then was clearly central. I do not know how it would have wrestled with that.
Ratification of the treaty lies at the heart of our national interest: it is not an optional extra. We have made that point in the House at the cost of some crtiticism and discomfort. Governments are elected to govern and, in this case, to propose, just as Parliaments in the United Kingdom are elected to decide and, indeed, to dispose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham made a critique which was much fairer and more balanced than that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). [Interruption.] It is not "Oh, dear". I have noticed the way in which the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham have evolved with the passage of time since the days 20 years ago—[Interruption.] I am embarrassing him so I will leave that train of thought—but it is true.
One point made by my hon. Friend was true—my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough also referred to this. It is true that a good many of those who have consistently argued in favour of a steadily centralising Europe have not abandoned that belief. They will continue to argue for it. They have received—and they know it—not a rout or total reversal but a check in the way in which the Maastricht treaty came out, compared with the Dutch draft which I mentioned. They will live to argue again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough referred to Chancellor Kohl. Chancellor Kohl specifically rejects the notion of a super-state and specifically endorses


and emphasises the notion of subsidiarity. He uses phrases about a united Europe, just as Winston Churchill did. His question is: how is that defined?
I must quarrel with the point made by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. I cannot accept that the Prime Minister and other hon. Members on the Government Front Bench have failed to set out the sort of Europe that they want. Time and again in the House and outside, we have said that we believe in a Europe which is enlarged beyond its present membership of 12, open trading and decentralising and which uses, makes a success of and keeps distinct the intergovernmental pillars in the treaty. We have set out the idea time and again. It can be realised only on the basis of the treaty. It certainly cannot be realised by tearing up the treaty. But on that basis I believe that once the treaty is ratified we can go ahead and play an increasingly influential part in achieving that type of Europe. That is certainly the aim of the Government.
Let us consider what would happen if the series of new clauses were passed. I shall not dwell on what would have to happen immediately. There would have to be legislation. We would have to spend many hours, days, even weeks, working out the question, the date and how the various organisations would be financed. We would spend many more days not on substance but on procedure. I am not sure that that is what is expected of us.
Of course, all that work would be justified if my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills were right and we proposed constitutional revolution and destruction. I hope that I have demonstrated that the treaty does not represent that.

Mr. Graham: We have seen the House divided and many hon. Members have argued furiously about the rights and wrongs of Maastricht. We have spent months and months on it while unemployment has increased, factories have been closed, and people have died because they could not afford to live in this country. Surely if we had a referendum in three weeks it would be clear whether the people of Britain supported the Maastricht treaty or not. We could get on with normal living and hopefully make Europe a better place to live in. We cannot come to a final decision because the House is divided. So why not leave it to the supreme power in Britain—a referendum of the people?

Mr. Hurd: It is odd for a Member of Parliament, even the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), to suggest that, because Parliament is divided and different views are strongly expressed, we should avoid or transfer the decision. That is an odd doctrine. Few major propositions in the House are not divisive in the sense that people argue about them strongly within and between parties. That is not normally regarded as an argument for refusing to take a decision on an issue when so much work has gone into its discussion.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hurd: I wish to get on, if I may.
It is sometimes said that we have put the decision into the hands of the Danes. That is completely erroneous. The decision for Britain lies where it belongs—in the hands of the British Parliament. We are preparing, in an admittedly untidy, imperfect but I think lively way, for that decision with a thoroughness of parliamentary debate.
I want to deal with the nature of the debate. We need not be ashamed of it. The press has been much keener to report manoeuvres and excitements outside the Chamber than what has been said inside the Chamber. I have taken part admittedly in only two of the debates in the Committee. I suppose that they were two of the more interesting debates—on subsidiarity and on the common foreign and security policy. I have read the others.
Obviously, I believe that those of us who put our case on the two matters which I have mentioned, and on others, had the better of it. I believe that we showed that subsidiarity was a real concept and demonstrated the helpfulness of the common foreign and security policy based on co-operation. But I am sure that some right hon. and hon. Members who were critical of those parts of the treaty felt that they had the best of it. But no one who sat through at any rate those two debates—and I believe that the same is true of others which I have read—can deny that the debates were of high quality and that the informal coming and going of the Committee stage enabled it to be of high quality.
Ministers and, indeed, critics were exposed to a coming and going of discussion which I thought was considerably better than the reports of it allowed. The House was doing its job. The House is doing its job. It is preparing for the final decision which it will take on Third Reading.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend think that the quality of our debates was enhanced by the virtually indiscriminate use of the closure? On occasions Front-Bench spokesmen, and in the case of the citizenship debate the Home Secretary himself, did not even answer the questions and points that were put in the debate.

Mr. Hurd: I think that, as always, many criticisms could be made about the way in which our debates have been conducted, but I do not think that one of them could be that the Committee has hustled through debates on the Bill. I do not think that that would be the general view of those who have assisted in the votes and I do not think that the accusation of undue speed could accurately be levelled. Ministers have done their job of replying to the points made in the debate.
It would be wrong and foolish to abandon or transfer the work. It would be a shirking of the responsibilities that we were given only a year ago, and it would be a blow to the standing of the House in years to come. We would be saying to our constituents, "We have examined the matter, but we do not intend to take a decision. We have spent hours, days and weeks examining the issues and now it is over to you. We are going to throw the treaty, with all its diverse controversies and complications, into your laps to make of it what you will." I agree with the principles set out by Lady Thatcher in 1975. It cannot be right to refuse to do our job, so it cannot be right to accept the new clauses.

Mr. George Robertson: Unusually for a debate in this Committee, I am seeking to catch your eye, Dame Janet, in order to participate. I say "unusually" because on only one previous occasion has a member of the Opposition Front Bench chosen to participate at the end of a debate as well as at the beginning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made only brief introductory comments, and many comments have been made by other hon. Members, so it is right and proper


that, as a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team which has come in for some attention during the debate, I should respond to some of the issues that have been raised in the interesting, wide-ranging and varied debate.
The issue is important for the Committee, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made the Labour party's position clear today. Our position should come as no surprise, as it was not adopted for the convenience of today or this stage of the Committee's debates. It was adopted after considerable consultation, and was finally decided on at the annual Labour party conference last October by an overwhelming majority.
In order to get the matter out of the way, I should first like to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on behalf of the Scottish National party. If what I have to say seems arcane to hon. Members from south of the border, they should listen carefully. During the past few weeks only, the Scottish National party has been campaigning for a vote on the referendum and for the Labour party to join SNP Members in the Division Lobby to defeat the Government. The SNP has been advancing that argument on the basis of a thesis that to do so, and to defeat the Government and approve new clause 49, would bring down the Government—or, at the very least, force the resignation of the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman said that we would never be forgiven by the Scottish people for voting with the Government to keep the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in his position as Prime Minister.
It is on that basis that the Scottish National party has created its argument in the past few weeks. What evidence does that party have that, faced with the prospect of defeat this evening, the Foreign Secretary would say that it was a resigning matter for either him or the Prime Minister? I do not believe that they would resign. We know from experience what happened on the occasion when, in Committee, the Government were foolish enough to put a proposition to the vote and were defeated on the issue of the Committee of the Regions. I understand that the Foreign Secretary was out of the country at the time, and the Government were not forced to a humiliating defeat on his advice. Whatever happened, they learned their lesson, and on three subsequent occasions, facing defeat, they simply accepted our amendments. Ministers would have to accept the will of the House. If there were a referendum, they would have to ask the Scottish National party and its leader to help them in the campaign for the Maastricht treaty. That would be the effect.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or anyone of note in the Government would resign if Parliament decided on a referendum, yet we are being told that it is critical and crucial and that the Government hang by a thread this evening, relying for their survival and the Prime Minister's future only on the votes of Labour Members.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Robertson: Let me finish explaining the position.
We are then told that the Labour party and the SNP would not have to campaign with the Government for a

Maastricht treaty that did not include the social chapter, because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has produced amendment (a) to new clause 49.
I have to tell right hon. and hon. Members who have just come in, and who may well be at their first debate of the Committee, that amendment (a) to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan gave so much attention this evening, the critical point that he says obliges the Labour party to vote for the referendum, was tabled last Thursday. However, the SNP has tabled its own new clause calling for a referendum.
I concede that the idea of a referendum is not a new SNP policy, because it tabled its own new clause 48, which does not contain any reference to the social chapter. It was not tabled last Thursday or starred this Monday; it was tabled on 2 December 1992, 19 weeks ago.
For 18½weeks, the SNP has been campaigning for a referendum without any questions on the social chapter, a referendum on a treaty that specifically excludes Britain from the social chapter. However, last Thursday, SNP Members decided, realised or woke up to the fact that they could do something that could give them a momentary advantage. Why would they look for advantage? Why would the SNP want to criticise the Labour party for voting with the Government? They want to get off the hook.
This elaborate, noisy smokescreen has been put up for only one reason—to cover up the cynical way in which, only a few weeks ago, the gullible SNP teamed up with a desperate Government to stand against the principle of elected councillors representing Britain on the European Committee of the Regions. That is why they have made such a big issue of this and why last Thursday, opportunistically, they tabled an amendment (a) to each of those new clauses.

Mr. Salmond: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has been shaken and stirred by the arguments that have been deployed. Can he have forgotten that only last week he sent me a letter saying that,
for one principal and good reason",
the Labour party would not help to defeat the Government this evening—it would not be possible to get the social chapter into the referendum argument? Now that the fig leaf has been removed, what excuse does the hon. Gentleman have for saving the Prime Minister's skin this evening?

Mr. Robertson: There we have it. This is the man who was trying to save the Prime Minister's skin only a few weeks ago—the very man who led his party into the Lobby to save the principle of Government appointees serving on the Committee of the Regions—and now he dares to lecture me on the subject.
One of the principal reasons why we are not interested in a referendum is that, almost inevitably, with a Conservative Government putting the question to the country, we would be obliged to campaign for a Maastricht treaty that did not contain the social chapter. That is not the only reason; we have, after all, developed our policy on a referendum over the past year, not in the past five days.
We all know why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is so desperate. Anyone who has read the Scottish press and learned what has happened in the SNP over the past few weeks knows perfectly well the reasons for this evening's burst of indignation. If the hon. Gentleman and


his colleagues who are members of the SNP national executive had not voted for themselves on a motion of censure, they would indeed have been censured by the national executive committee of the SNP.
Everyone knows that this is not a question of bringing down the Prime Minister. This SNP amendment has little or no chance of gaining the support of the Tory dissidents. Yet we are told to change the policy that we have adopted over the past year. That is a bogus and cynical attempt to wriggle off the hook that the Scottish people will never let the SNP wriggle off.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Robertson: I may eventually come to some of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. After all, I have been listening to them for the past nine years.
During the debate, some hon. Members have put up arguments supposedly advanced by those who oppose a referendum and then easily shot those arguments down. That is the simplest and oldest debating trick in the book. We are told that some say that the issue is too difficult for the British people to decide. I have never heard anyone, anywhere, say that. If it were true, the House could not decide the matter either. It is a patronising argument, and I have never heard anyone advance it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) claims that some people say that progress towards economic and monetary union does not matter anyway. I have never heard anyone say that either. Even those in favour of the treaty say that it matters. We have all, in fact, said that it matters.
We have been told that the nature of the treaty is so fundamental that Parliament must put it to a plebiscite. But the treaty does not concern only one issue. Some hon. Members have been honest enough to admit that not just one referendum is being asked for; there would have to be another on stage 3 of economic and monetary union. That, too, is fundamental. If so, why not have another on progress towards a common foreign and security policy? What about the transition to a common asylum policy? Where do we stop? When should Parliament stop taking decisions and start holding referendums?
I was one of the few people here who were on the Labour Front Bench to discuss the Single European Act in 1976—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nineteen eighty-six."] It just seems that long ago. I was in a road accident in 1976.
Some Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends will remember that there was rarely such a large attendance at debates in 1986. Of course, the Conservative party put through probably the most fundamental treaty not just without a referendum but on a guillotine. I am not surprised that my good old friend, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), is not here tonight, although he has been a consistent attender at many of these debates. There may be a good reason for his absence, but I can think of one: he was the Leader of the House who moved the guillotine motion. I do not think that he likes to be reminded of that.
Is the treaty irrevocable? Is that the real reason why some people want a referendum? The original decision was on being in or out. If we are in the Community, we are all in the same boat—sharing sovereignty, sharing decisions, occasionally winning, occasionally losing. The decision is not irrevocable. The country can decide whether we are in

or out of the European Community. That decision can be made and, if necessary, would be made by Parliament. Nothing is irrevocable.

Mr. Shore: It is the most extraordinary flight of fancy to pretend that, as we sign treaty after treaty with a European connection, we have the equal right that we had before we began this disastrous process to reverse it and pull out if we dislike something. My hon. Friend knows that that is not so. The real reason why we should have a referendum on this occasion is that, in spite of the fact that earlier treaties, all of which I have opposed, handed over great chunks of British power to decision-making in the European institutions, this treaty signs us up to a European union which carries the shape of a new state in Europe. If my hon. Friend cannot understand that, he is not fit to speak for my party.

Mr. Robertson: I do not think that my right hon. Friend ever thought that I was fit to speak on the issue for my party, so that does not come as news to me. I will not rehearse all my usual complimentary remarks about him. Although he has lost the argument and the vote in the Labour party consistently, the reality is that. if the representatives of this country want to come out of the Community and want to get out of the union that is being created—probably only in name—by the treaty, they can do it. I do not want to do that; I do not see the same spectres in the night as so many others do. If the country wants to get out of the Community, it has the right to do so, and nobody can stop it.
Hon. Members have said that we must let the people have a direct say. On what? It is not a simple, straightforward treaty on one issue. On which issues would the people have a say? Would it be on economic and monetary union and a single currency? Would it be on more powers for the European Parliament, or on more new competences in the Community? A yes or no answer is not relevant in circumstances where there is a series of issues.
Parliament has been able to consider the Bill. The Opposition Front Bench has not sought to wreck the treaty on any individual amendment, nor should we. We never said that we would do that. Every socialist party in the European Community and in all the applicant countries wants the Maastricht treaty, so we will not wreck it for them on the basis of one amendment on one aspect. The Government wanted to make the Committee of the Regions some mini health board consisting of a handful of friendly Tory business men, Government appointees. We forced them to accept that it will be made up of locally elected representatives.
On Monday, the Government accepted new clause 1, which places an obligation on the Governor of the Bank of England to place a report before Parliament. New clause 2 and amendment No. 420 were accepted. Who knows what the Government will accept at the end of' tonight's debate?
That all happened because Parliament went through the Bill. Without destroying the treaty, we have improved it for the whole of Europe. A yes or no referendum would not and could not do that.

Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the majority of Labour voters are in favour of this treaty on European union?

Mr. Robertson: Yes, I do. [Interruption.] I cannot prove that they do, any more than the hon. Gentleman can prove that they do not. When the Labour party conference debated it last year after the election and after debate in the party on the treaty as a whole, an overwhelming majority said that, although it was not perfect, it was the best that was obtainable in the circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham advanced an argument that is not confined to Opposition Members. He said that Parliament was not really reliable to carry out such scrutiny. He said that, after all, we are all subject to the Whips and that, when both Front Benches agreed on the basic thesis that the Maastricht treaty should go through, Parliament was not reliable. My hon. Friend was in the shadow Cabinet for years telling people what the whipping would be for the following week. Now he tells me that Parliament has no right to a say and cannot make decisions on its own, that it is precluded from doing so because the party leaderships, through their decision-making machinery, some of which is democratic and some of which is certainly not democratic, have decided. That does not stand any scrutiny.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No. I wish to make progress.
It was said that, during the election campaign, there was a cover-up conspiracy by the two Front Benches. It was said that the issue was not raised in the election and people did not know about it, and that therefore there must be a referendum. The Foreign Secretary said that, for party political advantage, he tried to raise it. That comes as a surprise, because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was above that. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) also tried, and we can produce the press releases that we put out. We can produce journalists who were briefed to the point of tedium, but, of course, little was heard about that.
I spent much time repeatedly telling the electorate that the Government were proud of opting out of one of the significant advantages of the Maastricht treaty. During that election campaign, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham was quite properly drawing attention to other matters. People were listening to him and, sad to say for my political future, they were not listening to me. The topic was there all the time and has not been suppressed in any way.

Mr. Gould: Will my hon. Friend refresh our memories about how people might have voted if they had taken a view contrary to the view of the leaders of both the major parties? Does he recall people having any option to vote for or against the Maastricht treaty, or were they simply presented with a monolithic position, agreed to by the leadership of all the major parties? For that reason, the matter was never an issue in the general election campaign.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend was in the leadership of the Labour party during that campaign, and that leadership told the people that, if we were returned to power we would ratify the Maastricht treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton made that absolutely plain. We would have ratified it, with the social chapter included in it.
The leaderships of the parties were united on a number of other issues. I dare say that that, in a clinical, technical

way, denied people the right to vote against such issues. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said, the British people must have drawn some conclusion from the fact that the leaderships of all the parties standing in the election, with the exception of the Ulster Unionists, were in favour of the Maastricht treaty, however imperfect they may have thought it in the detail. They would have drawn a conclusion from that, but to suggest that there was a conspiracy is nonsense.
We are told that public opinion must be the criterion. I agree that pubic opinion is extremely important. However, hardly a single politician in the Committee, if asked to comment on an opinion poll, would not say, if it were on a matter that he thought was contrary to his party's interest, "Ah well, it is only a snapshot, I am interested only in trends, I don't rely on one opinion poll."
A significant number of people want a referendum on Maastricht, but a similar majority would want a referendum on the return of capital punishment, perhaps on the abortion laws, almost certainly on the Sunday trading laws. On a whole series of issues, if people were asked whether they would like a referendum, they would say in almost the same proportion that they would like a referendum. However, if that is to be the principle on which we base the judgments we take, what will there be left for us to do?
I make the point that many others have made in the debate. Those who cry loudest about Parliament handing over sovereignty to Brussels—when we are sharing power with 12 other countries at Brussels, building on that share of sovereignty, making sure that we participate in, and get advantage from, that shared sovereignty—happen also to be those who are most keen to hand over sovereignty, on this and probably many other issues, to the rule of the plebiscite.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way. I have tried to answer many points, but time is moving on.

Sir Roger Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance, and a fairly lengthy chance at that, but I should like to conclude so that others may speak in the debate.
Most of the people—I concede, not all—who are seeking a referendum do so because they want a "no" majority. If they were frank, as some are, they would admit that what drives and motivates them is not just opposition to Maastricht but opposition to the European Community as a whole. So be it: they are entitled to that view. They failed in Parliament in 1972 and in 1976 and in the referendum of 1975, but they are entitled to keep on their campaigning.
The Labour party believes that Britain is in the European Community and should remain there. We believe that Parliament is the place where the issues can be debated, and the scrutiny that the British people expect and deserve can be given to the treaty and all the serious issues that are in it. For that reason, and many of the other reasons that I have enunciated and that have been enunciated by my right hon. and hon. Friends here and elsewhere, we shall oppose new clause 49.

Mr. Michael Lord: It is significant that, as we near the end of the Committee, the previous two speakers—from the Front Benches—addressed us in a


way that showed clearly the cosy relationship that the two Front Benches have had throughout the Committee proceedings.
I am not sure what impact my words will have, but it is vital to me to be able to tell the Committee how strongly I feel about this issue. I feel certain that, however well or badly I put my thoughts, this will be my most important contribution in my 10 years in the House and, together with my vote at the end of the debate, it may be the most important thing that I do for as long as I am a Member of Parliament.
The debate is not simply about whether this great House of Commons continues to govern our nation; it is also about how it is governing today and how in touch it is with the people it governs.
The whole sorry tale of the Maastricht treaty began at an intergovernmental conference in Rome in December 1990. As I was one of the delegation from the House at that conference, I suppose that I must, to some extent, bear some responsibility for what resulted from it. What a farce that first intergovernmental conference was! The delegates were supposed to attend as representatives of their countries, not of their political parties, and with reasonably open minds. On arrival, however, we were all placed in party-political groupings and it quickly became clear to me that few open minds were to be seen. It also became clear to me almost as soon as I arrived that the final proposals that the conference would put forward had been decided before it even started. If one asks what influence that conference had on the final proposals, the answer is absolutely none.
Europe can sometimes be very colourful. On the final morning of the conference, we voted for hours on 220 different amendments, all produced on purple paper. I have them with me and I will keep them for ever to remind me of that day. The voting finally finished, one or two of us having voted against the amendments while hundreds voted for them. Everyone seemed very happy, glasses clinked and we departed homewards. If ever the slogan, "Is your journey really necessary?" was applicable, it was to the 1990 intergovernmental conference in Rome.
The purple amendments gave way to the yellow treaty. Of course when we ask, "Why a referendum?" we must remember that the people of this country were not consulted about the drafting of that treaty. They never have been properly consulted since.
Under normal circumstances, I would not advocate a referendum because I believe that it is the duty of Members of Parliament to take decisions on behalf of their constituents and not to thrust those decisions back on their constituents' shoulders. But this is different. The Maastricht treaty will take away from Members of Parliament the right and the ability, fought for and cherished for centuries, to represent and stand up for their constituents in the House. If that power is to be given away or greatly diluted, as it is under the Maastricht treaty, only the British people, individually, can agree to it. The House of Commons cannot give away power, rights and responsibilities which belong not to it, but to the people.
The constant refrain from Ministers has been that some people are in favour of the Maastricht treaty, while others would like to come out of Europe altogether. That statement is one of those quarter truths that have clouded the entire debate. Most people do not fall into one of those two groups; they lie exactly between those two extremes.
During the general election, in common with many other hon. Members, I knocked on many doors. I must confess that the Maastricht treaty was not on the lips of everyone to whom I spoke. When it came up, however, the message I always received, loud and clear, was that people believed in the need for a common market, for which they clearly understood the nation voted in a referendum some years ago. They believed that a common market, or a free trade area, in Europe made a great deal of sense, but they did not want to go beyond that.
There are many good reasons for a referendum on this issue which I will not rehearse because many of them were given earlier.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend will accept that our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made repeated reference to the 1972 treaty of Rome. He said firmly to the Committee that it not only had an economic content but a political one. Is not the reality that the House misled the people into believing that the common market and the treaty of Rome were primarily, if not exclusively, about trade and economic matters and would not in any way impugn or undermine the sovereignty of the country and our Parliament?

1 am

Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The debate has teased out many truths about what has happened over the years in respect of agreements and treaties. If those truths had been made known to the people at the time, I believe that they would have reacted differently.
Ministers often say that the people are not happy about the Maastricht treaty and the present position in Europe because they do not understand the treaty. When the people come to understand fully what has already been given away in their name, we shall see the strongest possible reaction.
There are many good reasons why a referendum should be held. For example, as all the major parties were in favour of the treaty during the general election campaign, the electorate was unable to register its vote against it. The text of the treaty was not available to the general public until some time after the election.
This is too important a matter to be bulldozed through the House of Commons as a face-saving exercise for the Government so as not to upset our European colleagues. Nothing annoys me more than to hear many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who are voting for the Bill saying behind the scenes that they want only to get the Bill out of the way and then start negotiations to get the Europe that we want. What humbug! What family, business or organisation would sign a contract in which it did not believe on the basis that on the next day it could enter into new negotiations for a better deal?
Let no one fool himself about the reaction of Delors or others in Europe to the ratification of the treaty. We think that Europe is slowing down and that our voice is being heard, but once the treaty is ratified, Jacques Delors and his colleagues will have seen the process as a minor hiccup on the grand march towards the Europe in which they believe.
A referendum would not undermine parliamentary sovereignty. After all, previous referendums have not done so. If a referendum is properly carried out, it can supplement and enrich democracy and restore people's


faith in the system. An excellent editorial in The Times on 25 February showed how a referendum is far from alien to the Conservative tradition. Various leaders have been referred to, including Balfour, Baldwin and Churchill. They all considered and advocated referendums at various times. Parliament is undermined not by the idea of a referendum but by the squalid tactics that have been and are being employed to get the Bill through the House of Commons.
The Europe to which the Maastricht treaty is taking us is a dream of an out-of-touch, elitist group of civil servants and some senior, not to say in other parts of Europe, elderly politicians. It is not a Europe which makes any sense to the people of the United Kingdom. Jacques Delors said after the French referendum that Europe was an elitist venture and only the decision makers needed to be convinced. At the end of March, Willy de Clerc, the leader of the committee that produced an appalling report on rebuilding the Community's image, said that Governments and the Community should stop trying to explain the treaty. To use his words, "It is 'inexplainable'." He added that treaty decisions were far too technical and removed from daily life for people to understand. Should any laws be so incomprehensible? We are faced with a civil servant's dream and an ordinary person's nightmare.
Civil servants and politicians involved in European legislation seem to suffer from schizophrenia. Views depend entirely on which side of the channel an individual is sitting. Directives that seem sensible and communautaire when agreed in the neutral, rarefied and utopian atmosphere of a Brussels committee room or a Strasbourg restaurant become nonsensical when applied to the local factory, the corner shop or the women's institute. It would be funny if they were not doing so much damage.
A referendum campaign would initiate the debate that the nation has so far been denied and would widen the understanding of the treaty. The Danish people seem to manage it, so why cannot we?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way on that very point?

Mr. Lord: With respect, I must press on. The hour is late. There is a little more that I want to say and I have waited a long time to say it.
Are we really going to say that our people cannot have a referendum—that their fate must hang on the decision made by the people of Denmark in their referendum? The Irish and French have now held referendums. Are they so much more intelligent and politically aware than our people? I do not think so.
I am one of the Conservative Members who, throughout our debates on the Bill, have been called rebels. It is a label of which I am neither proud nor ashamed. I have never voted against the Government before in the 10 years in which I have been in the House, but this matter is much more important to me than any of the labels that are bandied about. If "rebel" is the correct term for a Member of Parliament who does what he believes to be right in regard to a great issue of the day, I am happy to be associated with former rebels in the Conservative party who also stuck to their guns.
In the 1843 Session of Parliament, Disraeli voted against the Government 10 times. In 1844, he did so seven

times. During the passage of the Government of India Bill in the 1930s, Winston Churchill voted against the Bill 30 times in Committee and once on Report. It is interesting to note that, on at least two occasions, Churchill moved motions to report progress.
Macmillan joined the rebellion against the Government's appeasement policy; and, after a foreign affairs debate in June 1936, he was one of two Tory Members who voted against the Government. A week later, he resigned the Whip. When Anthony Eden resigned in February 1938, he said at the start of his resignation statement:
there are occasions when strong political convictions must override all other considerations. Of such occasions only the individual himself can be the judge. No man can be the keeper of another man's conscience".
It is interesting to note how little things have changed in the last half century. During the Committee stage of the Government of India Bill in 1935, Winston Churchill wrote to his wife:
we do very well in the debate but the Government have mobilised 250 of their followers who do not trouble to listen to the debates but march in solidly and vote us down with large majorities usually swelled by the Socialists and always by the Liberals. It is going to be a long weary business".
On 2 March, he wrote to her again:
The Government's supporters are cowed, resentful and sullen. They keep 250 waiting about in the Libraries and Smoking Rooms to vote us down on every amendment and we have a fighting force of about 50 which holds together with increasing loyalty and conviction.
His letter ended:
The Divisions go the other way, but we mock at them for being lackeys and slaves".
During this Committee stage, I have heard the best speeches that I have heard since becoming a Member of Parliament. How sad it is that they have all too frequently been made to almost empty Galleries. I believe that the speeches have been so good because, by and large, the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have understood their subject and cared deeply about it. The Government have won the votes, but they have never won the arguments.
Perhaps the most important point for me so far was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). In a wonderful speech on 24 March, he comprehensively destroyed any credible case for a central bank. His remarks were given added authority by the fact that—I suspect—he knows more about international banking than any other Member of Parliament.
However, it is not my hon. Friend's remarks about banking that I shall remember for many years to come; it is his description of how a colleague of his in the House many years ago, Walter Elliot, had told him that voting for Munich—out of loyalty to Neville Chamberlain—had not only eventually wrecked his political career, but, more important, permanently damaged his self-esteem. He never ceased to reproach himself for his vote as events unfolded. My hon. Friend predicted that, 10 years from now, very few Conservative Members would admit that they had ever supported the Maastricht treaty.
Churchill said, "Trust the people." We have heard that phrase several times today. On this issue, we must not only trust the people; we must explain to them what is at stake and seek their views. We keep talking about open government, but if people really do not understand what


we are doing in the House of Commons, they are shut out of the affairs of our nation just as effectively as if a door had been slammed in their face.
Many recent decisions by the Government have raised serious questions about how in touch with the people we are. How tragic it would be if this estrangement were to reach its peak on a matter of such magnitude. It is essential for any Government to keep in touch with the people. We may not think that they need to be consulted, but what happens if they think that they ought to be and they are not? If their views are not sought and if events in Europe go the way that I suspect they will, they will feel cheated and angry.
What, then, will be the repercussions, not just on European issues but on the whole relationship between the nation and its Government.? We want more open and more honest government. Why do we not start now? A referendum on this issue could be the turning point, giving back to the people their involvement and rekindling their trust.
I particularly urge the Prime Minister not to allow the responsibility for forcing this dubious treaty on our country to rest entirely on his own shoulders. He has done all that anyone possibly could to keep his word on the Maastricht treaty and to honour his commitment, but it is now almost a year and a half since that commitment was given and so much has changed in the Community and the wider Europe. The world has moved on significantly. The Danes have voted no. There is great anxiety throughout Europe about this treaty and a growing belief in all countries that on this issue leaders are out of touch with their people. Our Prime Minister is entitled to say, "I have done my best, but the whole European scene is now so changed that I feel obliged to recognise the concerns of the British people about this issue and to put the matter to them in a referendum."
The Prime Minister wants a nation at ease with itself. Our nation is not at the moment at ease with itself. It is a nation hypnotised by Europe and frustrated by its inability to act decisively, not just in its own best interests but in the best interests of the other nations of Europe. For a nation to be at ease with itself, it needs to be at ease with its neighbours, and we are not.
There should be no need to enforce co-operation between European allies in a treaty. If they agree on policies, they can act together freely and in their own mutual interest. Forced co-operation and co-ordination, as in the exchange rate mechanism, creates unnecessary pressures which eventually have to be released, one way or the other.
I believe that very few Members of this House of Commons really have their hearts in the Maastricht treaty any more. If that is true, how wrong it would be to foist it on the British people without their consent. I am prepared to admit that I want to see a referendum, not just for the reasons that I gave earlier but because I very much hope and believe that the British people do not want the Maastricht treaty and would vote against it.
I hope that hon. Members who vote against a referendum tonight will at least admit to themselves that they may be voting against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty partly on principle but also because they know that a referendum, if granted, would result in a resounding no.
The House of Commons, established and maintained by sacrifices and traditions for centuries, has to make a

historic decision. This issue is said to be an extremely complicated one, but I wonder whether that is really true. Perhaps all great issues are essentially very simple. Perhaps we make them complicated when we do not want to face them. The very simple question that I want the British people to be asked is: "Do you want to be governed by the House of Commons or Brussels?"
This is about our country's independence, integrity and individuality. It is about all those things which, as has already been mentioned in the debate today, pilots in the battle of Britain fought and died for. In its own way, the treaty is a battle for Britain, the big difference being that we, as Members of Parliament, do not have to sacrifice our lives but only to cast our votes. I hope that when hon. Members cast their votes, they will allow the people of this country to say what they want our votes to mean and to stand for in the years to come.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is an unusual pleasure to be able to follow speeches by members of the two main Front Benches because in Maastricht debates we have usually heard no senior but junior members of the Front Benches —senior members of the Front Benches have wanted to stay away and not commit themselves to anything in the dead of night. It is interesting that two senior Front Benchers feel so guilty about what is being said in opposing a referendum that they have come to justify it at such length and in such arcane ways.
1.15 am
The Foreign Secretary's speech was interesting. I have always regarded him as an other-worldly figure, possibly a foreigner, in his Loden overcoat about which I heard someone remark, "The last time I saw someone wearing an overcoat like that, I shot him." His speech revealed that he is so other-wordly that he has spent the past six months on another planet. He feels that the people of this country are in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that the overwhelming majority of the Conservative party is in favour of it and opposed to a referendum.
If he feels that, why not put it to the test? Why not put the issue to the people if they think as he believes they do? Instead, he says that we should not have a referendum because we did not have one on the Single European Act which, to people like me, simply means that one should not trust politicans again. They said that the Act changed nothing but subsequently admit that it changed everything so much that we should have had a referendum. The Foreign Secretary even says that the 1975 referendum produced a final verdict. Yet we were positively assured that it had stopped progress towards monetary union and all the things that we are being offered now.
My party's Front Bench spokesman gave a brilliant performance in whipping up support for a referendum. For that reason, I did not want to interrupt him. However, he did not deal with the central argument of those of us who want a referendum. It has nothing to do. with the intricate politics of Scottish nationalism or an internal argument in Scotland. I hesitated to intrude on the domestic row. The central point is our belief that, on a matter of basic constitutional change, the people should be consulted. That is what it is about, not a desire to bring down the Government or to do anything else. The people have a right to be consulted.
I thought that the Liberal Front Bench spokesman made the most effective speech of the three Front Bench


spokesmen. He made the basic point that the only way to get the treaty settled in and accepted and to get popular consent is to let the people speak. If not, there will be the long whingeing embittering rear-guard action about which the critics of a referendum have complained all along. Refusal will guarantee that the bitter feeling of frustration will be amplified.
If we now refuse the people a referendum, they will justly feel cheated because they will have been cheated. When the consequences of the treaty, in terms of economic deflation and the other problems that we have foreseen, become apparent, their resentment will take the form of a long, whimpering, whingeing bitterness, which will guarantee that neither the treaty nor European union will be acceptable to them and that both will be bitterly resisted.
One cannot make people enthusiastic about Europe by putting them out of a job or, especially, by not telling them that that will be the consequence of the treaty or by not giving them the opportunity to say whether they want to accept it in the first place. A referendum is the only way to get democratic acceptance of the treaty.
I cannot see what the critics of a referendum fear. They have the support of the Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House, and the Foreign Secretary tells us that they have the support of the Conservative party. They have the support of the majority of the Labour party, and the support of the Liberals, the Scottish nationalists, the CBI, the TUC—so they tell us—and of the press and all the rest of the media. They have the support of The Independent and of The Guardian, which believes in "My Europe, right or wrong,"—or, as The Guardian would put it, "My Europe right or wrong." Yet with all that support they still fear that there will not be a majority in favour of Maastricht. That is inconceivable. Their case must be absolutely pathetic if even with all that support they fear that Maastricht will be rejected.
At this stage in the argument I must make a confession. When I used to teach political science—when I was concerned with the theory, before coming here to fail the practicals—I opposed referendums, for two basic reasons. First, I thought that the system as it was worked well and that party government gave us the power to change. I thought that a majority, a mandate, would give a Labour party the power to change the system in this country and make it a fairer society. Secondly, I believed that a referendum, as a conservative device that was opposed to change, would deny us that power. We have to face the fact that a referendum is a conservative device.
Those two reasons for opposing referendums were confirmed by my first experience of a referendum in 1967. In New Zealand I voted in favour of ending the 6 o'clock swill. That was a basic mistake in my life, because the result changed New Zealand society and ruined social habits there. It meant that people were drinking all night instead of going totally berserk and being out of their brains by 7 o'clock, with the rest of the evening to sober up. So my first referendum vote was a basic mistake.
Since then I have changed my view, because the social base on which parties and politics in this country rests is now out of adjustment with the polity in the country. Because the social base has changed we now get, not alternation of parties, not the power to change things, but a prolonged period of dictatorship by the minority. That is the consequence of the change in the system.
There is now a growing gulf between politics, politicians and parties on the one hand, and the people on the other. There is now a class of professional career politicians who want to get on, and one way to get on is to testify one's loyalty to Europe, the source of all blessing, jobs, sinecures and cashflow. Ours becomes a system in which people climb by conforming, and as they do so they get more and more out of touch with the people. That gulf is compounded by the economic difficulties of a country in decline, which mean that politicians cannot deliver the well-being that people ask for.
For all those reasons, there is a gulf between politicians and people, and the people feel resentful. They feel that they are not consulted or listened to. We make that worse if we do not allow them to be consulted on a basic constitutional issue. They should be consulted on constitutional issues, and the Labour party has led the way in doing that. We gave the people the referendum on entry, although it came belatedly in 1975, and we gave the people a referendum on devolution in Scotland and Wales. It went against us, and it was not adequate, but it was Labour party policy to consult the people.

Mr. Salmond: The referendum did not go against you. The people supported it.

Mr. Mitchell: The figure was slightly over 50 per cent., but we did not get the 40 per cent. that we required; it was 32·8 per cent. or something like that. I forget the exact figure. All that I am saying is that we gave the people the referendum; it was Labour party policy, which we all voted for and supported. Why now change our minds? It is clear that there should be a referendum on a constitutional issue.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will know that the Labour party's policy in Scotland is to have a multi-referendum. We are still keen to have one, so we would give the people in Scotland the right to make a decision on a highly complex issue. I say, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees, that we shall be insulting the intelligence of the people of Britain if we do not give them a referendum. I do not know which way the people of Britain would vote. However, that is not important. The point is that democracy is important. If it is good for Boris Yeltsin, it is good for other folk.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not sure whether everything that is good for Boris Yeltsin is good for me. I do not take as much of it, if I can put it that way.
The people should be consulted on constitutional issues. Labour has consulted them in the past and there will be a change in their powers over our system of government in respect of their constitutional role. In respect of Maastricht, we cannot make people citizens of a union, with the rights and duties of citizens of a union, without consulting them. We cannot impose on the people the kind of economic framework that we are imposing on them without consulting them.
This basic change is being made by the back door. There is a surge and drive to unity in Europe. However, popular consent cannot be achieved in referendums and there is no intergovernmental agreement. If we had been able to achieve intergovernmental agreement, the CAP would not have survived for as long as it has, still absorbing more than 60 per cent. of Europe's spending. As popular consent and intergovernmental agreement cannot


be achieved, the idea is to impose unity from the top down through monetary union which is the core of the Maastricht treaty.
As a result, we will be committed to re-enter the ERM and to monetary union. As part of the treaty we are committed to hand over the powers that a Labour Government, or any sensible Government, would need to revive the declining economy of this country and to widen our industrial base. That includes power over interest rates, over the exchange rate, over borrowing and over the money supply.
All those tools will have been handed over. We do not have the ability or the right to hand over to another entity those powers which rightly belong to the people and the Government whom they elect, without consulting the people. However, that is what we are being asked to do. It is a mistake to create a Europe in which central bankers rule OK and untrammelled without any control over their decisions without consulting the people. We should not hand over those weapons.
At one stage in the debate, we asked what a Labour Government would do, when they took office in 1996 with a mandate to rebuild the economy, to fight rising unemployment and to widen the industrial base, if all those powers had been handed over. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman said, "Oh well, we'll go to Brussels and negotiate." We will not actually do anything because we cannot do anything, so we end up with the spectacle of a Labour Government—a Labour Government—hiring taxis to scuttle around Brussels to ask permission to stop making their own people redundant as consequence of the treaty.
It has been said that this is not irrevocable, but it is. It is absolutely irrevocable. Once the powers are gone, they are gone and that is it. It has also been said that we do not need to consult the people in a referendum because they have already been consulted in the election. That is totally bogus. All the parties presented the same policies on Maastricht. There was no choice for people in most constituencies who were against the treaty. What were they to do? Were they to abdicate the hope of change or were they to concentrate simply on the issue of Maastricht? It is totally unrealistic to claim that the election decided the issue.
It is also unrealistic to say that Parliament should decide the issue because there is effectively a conspiracy between the parties.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, of course. I am sorry, I did not see the hon. Gentleman rising.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman avoid misleading his Front Bench about the powers after the Maastricht treaty has been passed? Does he accept that the power available to a possible future Labour Government to go to Brussels and plead for certain changes in policy will be removed totally when the central bank takes over? Will the hon. Gentleman consider page 91 of the treaty where he will see that, after the central bank takes over, no Labour Government, Conservative Government or even a Liberal Democrat Government will be allowed to make representations or a telephone call to the bank, or even send it a letter? Does he appreciate that it is not simply the

abolition of freedom, democracy, socialism or conservatism? Basically, it means that there is not much point in voting for anyone at the next election.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Our only power will be not to send letters to the bank but to receive letters from it. Presumably, we will be charged 30 million ecu for each letter telling us that we are in overdraft. The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point.
Government Front Bench and Labour Front Bench spokesmen are saying the same thing: the treaty is not perfect; it will not work well; time has passed it by; it is probably dead and it is unable to be implemented but we must still pass it as a testimony to our commitment to the Community. Our electors—the people—do not share that commitment, but we must testify to it to Europe. For the first time, the Liberals have tasted power—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 299, Noes 110.

Division No. 245]
[1.30 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clappison, James


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alton, David
Coe, Sebastian


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Congdon, David


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cormack, Patrick


Aspinwall, Jack
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dafis, Cynog


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Day, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Batiste, Spencer
Devlin, Tim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evennett, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Burt, Alistair
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butler, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butterfill, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fishburn, Dudley


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)






Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclennan, Robert


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls. Sir Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Milligan, Stephen


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stephen, Michael


Macdonald, Calum
Stern, Michael





Stewart, Allan
Wallace, James


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sykes, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M, (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Walden, George





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Knapman, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Leighton, Ron


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Terry


Bayley, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Loyden, Eddie


Bendall, Vivian
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McKelvey, William


Bennett, Andrew F.
McNamara, Kevin


Budgen, Nicholas
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Canavan, Dennis
Marlow, Tony


Cann, Jamie
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Meale, Alan


Cash, William
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cohen, Harry
Pickthall, Colin


Connarty, Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Corston, Ms Jean
Reid, Dr John


Cousins, Jim
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cran, James
Rooker, Jeff


Cryer, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Salmond, Alex


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Dixon, Don
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Donohoe, Brian H.
Simpson, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Etherington, Bill
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Spearing, Nigel


Fatchett, Derek
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Fisher, Mark
Stevenson, George


Galloway, George
Stott, Roger


Gardiner, Sir George
Sweeney, Walter


Gill, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gould, Bryan
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Graham, Thomas
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Tipping, Paddy


Hanson, David
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Hardy, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Harvey, Nick
Watson, Mike


Heppell, John
Welsh, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Winnick, David


Illsley, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jessel, Toby
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Wise, Audrey


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Wray, Jimmy






Wright Dr Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Young David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Ken Livingstone.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly and negatived.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): As promised on Monday, I shall now call for separate Divisions only on new clause 10 and new clause 12, neither of which is directly connected with the matter that the Committee has been discussing on new clause 8. A separate Division on new clause 49, which is related to new clause 8 and the referendum, will come after the two new clauses.

New clause 10

REPORT OF EUROPEAN COUNCIL

'.—After the European Council has submitted its report after each of its meetings, Her Majesty's Government shall publish and lay such reports, and those annual reports in writing, as required by Title 1, Article D of the Treaty on European Union before Parliament, together with a statement as to their policy and performance in respect of the activities of the Union and their policies for its future.'—[Mr. Shore.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 292.

Division No. 246]
[1.43 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Armstrong, Hilary
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H.


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Enright, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galloway, George


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gill, Christopher


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cann, Jamie
Gould, Bryan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Graham, Thomas


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Corston, Ms Jean
Heppell, John


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cran, James
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hood, Jimmy





Hoon, Geoffrey
Reid, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


Jessel, Toby
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Salmond, Alex


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lewis, Terry
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lord, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAllion, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Meale, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Milburn, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Joan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wareing, Robert N


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Watson, Mike


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilkinson, John


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mullin, Chris
Winnick, David


Murphy, Paul
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.
Wright, Dr Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Bob Cryer, and Mr. Austin Mitchell.


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bellingham, Henry


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Booth, Hartley


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boswell, Tim


Alton, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Amess, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burt, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bates, Michael
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Carrington, Matthew






Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon. David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dafis, Cynog
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lightbown, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Foster, Don (Bath)
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclennan, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Milligan, Stephen


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard





Page, Richard
Stern, Michael


Paice, James
Stewart, Allan


Patnick, Irvine
Streeter, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sykes, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thomason, Roy


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Redwood, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Richards, Rod
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Robathan, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tyler, Paul


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wallace, James


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Sir Keith
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wigley, Dafydd


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Spring, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sproat, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Stephen, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 12

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 100C OF THE TREATY OF ROME TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS ON CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELDS OF JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

'No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Communities that the United Kingdom has adopted a decision of the Council under Article K 9. (Application of Article 100c of the Treaty of European Union) of the Treaty of European Union unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Shore.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 84, Noes 292.

Division No. 247]
[1.54 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cann, Jamie


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Barnes, Harry
Cash, William


Beggs, Roy
Chisholm, Malcolm


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F.
Connarty, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Corbyn, Jeremy


Callaghan, Jim
Corston, Ms Jean


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Cran, James






Davidson, Ian
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Pickthall, Colin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Etherington, Bill
Rooney, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Galloway, George
Rowlands, Ted


Gardiner, Sir George
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gill, Christopher
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Alan


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hanson, David
Spearing, Nigel


Harvey, Nick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Jessel, Toby
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Knapman, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Watson, Mike


Leighton, Ron
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Livingstone, Ken
Winnick, David


Loyden, Eddie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McAllion, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


McKelvey, William
Wise, Audrey


Madden, Max
Wray, Jimmy


Mahon, Alice
Wright, Dr Tony


Marlow, Tony
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Austin Mitchell.


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Alton, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Beith. Rt Hon A. J.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Andrew
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David


Butler, Peter
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fenner, Dame Peggy





Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
Lynne, Ms Liz


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclean, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclennan, Robert


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson. Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David






Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Wallace, James


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thomason, Roy
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Willetts, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trend, Michael



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Tyler, Paul



Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 49

COMMENCEMENT PROVISIONS

'This Act shall take effect on the first day of January 1996 or on such earlier date as may be specified in any subsequent Act of Parliament as the date for the holding of a consultative referendum to establish whether or not majority opinion supports The Treaty on European Union.'.—[Mr. Gould.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 363.

Division No. 248]
[2.5 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunn, Bob


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Alton, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Fry, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Galloway, George


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gould, Bryan


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cann, Jamie
Jenkin, Bernard


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jessel, Toby


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cash, William
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cohen, Harry
Knapman, Roger


Connarty, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Legg, Barry


Corston, Ms Jean
Leighton, Ron


Cran, James
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lord, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Loyden, Eddie


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lynne, Ms Liz


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAllion, John


Duncan-Smith, Iain
McKelvey, William





McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Sweeney, Walter


Mahon, Alice
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tyler, Paul


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mullin, Chris
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pawsey, James
Wallace, James


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watson, Mike


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Welsh, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Whittingdale, John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wilkinson, John


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Simpson, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Austin Mitchell.


Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Peter


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alexander, Richard
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allen, Graham
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Aspinwall, Jack
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Barron, Kevin
Cormack, Patrick


Bates, Michael
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bayley, Hugh
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blair, Tony
Day, Stephen


Boateng, Paul
Devlin, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Dewar, Donald


Boswell, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dixon, Don


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Bradley, Keith
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Elletson, Harold


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Enright, Derek


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Etherington, Bill


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)






Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Evennett, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Faber, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Fabricant, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Illsley, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Ingram, Adam


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Jack, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Fishburn, Dudley
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Johnston, Sir Russell


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Forth, Eric
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Foulkes, George
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Key, Robert


Fraser, John
Kilfedder, Sir James


Freeman, Roger
King, Rt Hon Tom


French, Douglas
Kirkwood, Archy


Fyfe, Maria
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Galbraith, Sam
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Gale, Roger
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Gallie, Phil
Knox, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Garnier, Edward
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Garrett, John
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Gillan, Cheryl
Leigh, Edward


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lidington, David


Gorst, John
Lightbown, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Luff, Peter


Grylls, Sir Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
McAvoy, Thomas


Gunnell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hague, William
McFall, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
MacKay, Andrew


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maclean, David


Hannam, Sir John
McLeish, Henry


Hanson, David
Maclennan, Robert


Hardy, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Madel, David


Harris, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Haselhurst, Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Malone, Gerald


Hayes, Jerry
Mans, Keith


Heald, Oliver
Marland, Paul


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Henderson, Doug
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hendry, Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Heppell, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hicks, Robert
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Mates, Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Meale, Alan


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Home Robertson, John
Merchant, Piers


Hoon, Geoffrey
Michael, Alun


Horam, John
Milburn, Alan


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Miller, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Mills, Iain


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)





Monro, Sir Hector
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soames, Nicholas


Morgan, Rhodri
Speed, Sir Keith


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Moss, Malcolm
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spink, Dr Robert


Murphy, Paul
Spring, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Neubert, Sir Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stephen, Michael


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stern, Michael


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Allan


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stott, Roger


Oppenheim, Phillip
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Ottaway, Richard
Straw, Jack


Page, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Patnick, Irvine
Sykes, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pendry, Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Thomason, Roy


Pike, Peter L.
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Prescott, John
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Radice, Giles
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, John
Trend, Michael


Reid, Dr John
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaz, Keith


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walley, Joan


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Ward, John


Rogers, Allan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rooker, Jeff
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Sheerman, Barry
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Worthington, Tony


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Short, Clare



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkwood.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)



Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Question accordingly negatived.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Committee report progress; to sit again this day.

Royal Prerogative

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. John Garrett: I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch's power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.
Blackstone's 18th century "Commentaries on the Laws of England" referred to the prerogative as
that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity"—
an arrangement that Blackstone described as
in its nature singular and eccentrical".
In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens' rights.
The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe:
this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn".—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.]
My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.
The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.
Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between

subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.
Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.
In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?
The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed:
it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise.
He noted that there had been "practically no authority" on the matter since 1688.
The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote:
In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge.
He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says:
the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed.
He also says:
The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner's jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking.
We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.
The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown's right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?
Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient "prerogative of perfection"—that is, "The King can do no wrong." What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.
Munro concludes:
Behind the phrase "royal prerogative" lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised.
It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.
In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said:
It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers."—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.]
It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker's job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.
The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.
I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has shown interest in constitutional matters for 25 years. I know that because I have read the flyleaf of his book. I mean no disrespect in mentioning it. In the final paragraph on page 65, he uses the same quotation from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Tonight the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of ministerial exercise of powers under the royal prerogative and implied that there is some abuse in the exercise of such powers. That is not the case, as I shall prove. I shall attempt to deal with most of the points that he has raised but, if there are any that I have not dealt with by the end of the debate, I shall write to him.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the history of the royal prerogative goes back to the middle ages, when the king was both feudal lord and head of the kingdom. He therefore had all the rights of a feudal lord and certain exceptional rights. The king could not be sued in his own courts and, in addition, had powers to defend the realm against enemies and an
undefined residue of power which he might use for the public good.
It was the "undefined residue" of prerogative power which caused disputes when claimed by the Stuarts. Lawyers claimed then that there was a fundamental distinction between the ordinary and the absolute prerogative; the ordinary prerogative being those functions the king would exercise only in defined ways, which involved no element of discretion. Thus the king could dispense justice only through the judges, and make laws through Parliament.
The absolute prerogative, on the other hand, the king's discretionary powers, were the powers on which Charles I relied in seeking to govern without Parliament. The conflict was resolved after the execution of one king and the expulsion of another.
However, the problem still remained. It was resolved in two stages. The Bill of Rights of 1689 declared illegal certain specific uses and abuses of the prerogative, and since then there has been a growth in responsible government and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. It became established that certain prerogative powers could be exercised only through and on the advice of Ministers responsible to Parliament.
The royal prerogative has been described by a distinguished constitutional writer as an "attenuated remnant". The rights of Parliament to limit the prerogative are unrestricted. It is a one-way street. By definition, the scope of the prerogative is not greater now than it was in, say, 1979, and I have seen no convincing demonstration that the use of the prerogative is significantly different, or that practice in reporting such use to Parliament has changed.
It is simply not the case that the royal prerogative has to a large extent got stuck in Whitehall, as the hon. Gentleman implied. The legislative authority of Parliament to limit prerogative powers is unlimited, and the extent of the prerogative has been steadily reduced over the years and cannot be increased. Such prerogative powers are residual and may be restricted or abolished by statute, and even where statute overlaps prerogative powers, the prerogative power falls into abeyance and the Crown from then on uses the statutory rather. than the prerogative power.
The hon. Gentleman claims that the prerogative has been used some 1,400 times in the past 10 years and asks why, implying that the Government have abused their powers. The same powers have of course been used, in much the same way, by previous, Labour, Governments; indeed, they have been used by successive Governments.
The hon. Gentleman cites in particular the declaration of war, the making of international treaties, and judicial


and civil service appointments. But it is inconceivable that any Government would declare war without being confident that they would command parliamentary support. The money needed to sustain the war could be voted only by Parliament.
No sensible Government would take the risk of declaring war without being assured of parliamentary support. The events of 1939 and 1940, and the way in which this country fought that war as a democracy, changing the Prime Minister as a direct result of an expression of the feeling of the House, provide evidence of the flexibility and strength of our unwritten constitution.
Treaties are published under the Ponsonby rule. It has been in use for nearly 70 years, including periods when the Labour party was in power. It applies to all treaties that are signed subject to ratification, and was born out of the desire to give Parliament the opportunity to examine such treaties before they were ratified. They include those which established NATO and the Western European Union, and more recently the Antarctic treaty, the Montreal protocol on the control of CFCs, and so on.
The value of the procedure, and its effectiveness for allowing an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and debate before ratification, is thus well proven, and has been accepted by successive Governments. Where a treaty cannot be ratified without making a change to domestic law, the full Bill procedure is required for that change to be made, as Members will be well aware from the debates on the Maastricht treaty, which is surely the most widely debated and closely analysed of any international treaty in recent memory.
This country is rightly proud of the political neutrality of its civil service and of the independence of its judiciary. Those would not necessarily be strengthened if Parliament was involved in the appointments process. Judicial appointments are made either by a responsible Minister, as in the case of the Lord Chancellor, or, as in the case of the senior judiciary, by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the case of both civil service and judicial appointments, Ministers are accountable to Parliament through a substantive motion. The Civil Service Commission upholds and oversees the principle of appointment on merit through fair and open competition.
The hon. Gentleman also questioned the use of the prerogative in the issue and refusal of passport facilities. Under the present system, United Kingdom passports are issued at the discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, exercising the royal prerogative.
In practice, refusal of passport facilities to United Kingdom nationals is confined to certain well defined cateories, of which Parliament has been informed from time to time. Those are necessary in order to maintain the principle of discretion and to prevent it from being prejudiced by the criticism of arbitrary restriction of travel, which is created when a passport is refused.
Although the issue of passports is a discretionary power under the royal prerogative, it is as constrained as any statutory power might be, and the exercise of the discretion may be reviewed by the courts. The system has

worked well, and it has been generally accepted that, under successive Administrations, that exercise of the royal prerogative has not been abused.
Implicit in what the hon. Gentleman says is the notion that Governments are somehow secretive. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading a review of unnecessary secrecy, and the Government will be publishing a White Paper in the summer. However, I am not convinced that a charge of secretiveness about the use of the prerogative can be made to stick. The hon. Gentleman may ask why, if we are that open, we do not write down what all the prerogatives are.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the written answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the relationship between statutory powers and prerogative powers can be very complex, especially if the wider definition of the prerogative to which I referred earlier is used, and it would be impracticable to list all the occasions when action was taken under the prerogative. For example, every time a passport is issued, it is in fact an exercise of the prerogative. It would have been just as difficult to enumerate every action taken under statutory authority. There is very eminent authority for this view in Wade and Bradley on constitutional and administrative law. The 10th edition states:
Because of the diverse subjects covered by the prerogative, and because of the uncertainty of the law in many instances when an ancient power has not been used in modern times, it is not possible to give a comprehensive catalogue of prerogative powers".
The scope of Orders in Council approved under the prerogative, on the other hand, is narrow. Most orders are made in exercise of statutory powers—that is, under powers delegated by Parliament. Prerogative orders consist essentially of: first, those recording the appointment or swearing of new Privy Councillors; secondly, and the largest number, those granting royal charters or approving changes to existing charters, which are made on the submission of the bodies themselves; thirdly, those directing the affixing of the great seal to proclamations —for example, proroguing or dissolving Parliament; and fourthly, those making certain appointments such as governors of the BBC.
Those orders represent less than half the total made by the Queen in Council. The remainder are made under statutory powers, and are subject to such parliamentary procedures as are specified in the relevant Acts. They arc in exercise of a delegated authority to legislate given by Parliament, not an expression of the prerogative at all.
The hon. Gentleman sees Crown immunity as an aspect of the prerogative. But the Government's policy on Crown immunity, as set out in the "Citizen's Charter" White Paper which deals with services to the public by Departments and Crown bodies, is to ensure that those bodies are not shielded from obligations placed upon others. That is consistent with the progressive removal of immunities from the health service. It is also consistent with the approach taken in the Food Safety Act 1990, which exposed the Crown to inspection and enforcement procedures, but not to criminal prosecution. A similar approach was followed in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The Government gave a commitment in the "Citizen's Charter" White Paper that the same approach would be


followed in similar future legislation, retaining immunities only for special reasons, such as the protection of national security.
At this point, I return to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about GCHQ. The Government's decision to remove the right of GCHQ staff to be members of the national civil service unions was taken because industrial disruption of GCHQ had been used by the national unions to put pressure on the Government in national civil service disputes. Between 1979 and 1981, 10,000 man days were lost disrupting an organisation whose continuous operation is vital to national security.
The Government's objectives remain unchanged since 1984. However, there have been discussions with the Council of Civil Service Unions to look for an alternative solution that would meet the concerns of all parties. The exercise of prerogative powers is subject to judicial review and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the judgment of Lord Scarman in the GCHQ case. In general, if the question at issue is justiciable, the prerogative function will be subject to judicial review.
So the approach is a progressive one. Opportunities are being taken as they arise to bring the Crown within regulatory provisions applying to other bodies. Where the Crown is not at present bound by existing requirements, Crown bodies are expected to comply as though requirements applied to them whenever this is appropriate and practicable.
In any parliamentary democracy, the Government must not be above the law and are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is open to Parliament to restrict the prerogative powers exercised by Ministers further, if it wishes to do so, by introducing new Acts of Parliament. However, there is no sensible option of a blanket approach, as the hon. Gentleman would like to see. The case must be made and considered specifically, and in each area.

Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: I have finished.

Mr. Garrett: The Minister trots out weasel words about the Government being able to remove prerogative powers as though it was democratic.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We have a slight procedural difficulty. The Minister having sat down, the hon. Member cannot have a second bite at the cherry.

Mr. Garrett: I thought he had given way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I realise that. It then became clear that he had not.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Three o'clock.